Agenda packet — Folsom City Council, April 22, 2025 (part 2 of 3)

04/22/2025 Item No.14.
8 review processes such as design review is whether the review needs to go to a Commission for review and approval. As noted previously, given the need to prepare staff reports and presentations, as well as holding the Commission meetings themselves, this increases the amount of staff time and cost. Changes to processes would help bring some of these fees closer to full cost recovery.

Staff is currently evaluating these changes as part of the Zoning Code Update.

ENGINEERING AND TREE PERMIT CHANGES
In addition to the changes to Planning fees, t he Engineering Division and City Arborist are requesting the following updates to their fees that were previously app roved in May 2024 based on feedback from customers and an internal review:

1. Engineering fees that are based on staff time were updated to reflect that going forward they will be adjusted based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as the City does for all other fees. Fees based on project valuation will remain unchanged.

2. Engineering is requesting that the fee for Lot Line Adjustments be modified since the current fee did not cover the typical amount of staff time necessary for review of those.

3. Engineering is proposing language to clarify that the Certificate of Compliance fee also covers the review and approval of parcel mergers.

4. Staff previously proposed that the landscape review fee for production homes be changed from fee based on project valuation to a fixed fee back in May 2024. However, staff discovered that the fixed fee approach did not consider the number of landscaping schemes/master plans that are submitted for production homes (i.e., tract homes). The amount of staff time can vary depending on the number of landscaping schemes submitted.

As a result, staff is recommending to maintain the current $2,300 fee for up to 4 landscaping schemes but increase the fixed fee to $2,500 for 5 schemes plus an additional 10% of the fee for each additional landscaping scheme beyond five.

5. Staff is also recommending that the landscape review fees for Model Home Complexes, Commercial, Streetscape, Other Development Projects, as well as Development and Civil Improvements be eliminated given that those projects are already covered by the Engineering and Landscape Plan Check and Inspection fee.

6. Based on staff experience and feedback from homeowners, the City’s Urban Forester/Arborist is proposing a few specific changes to tree permits as follows:

a. Currently, a flat rate of $ 100 is used for both tree removal and pruning when it involves two (2) trees or less. However, the fee jumps to $1,200 for tree work or removal involving three (3) or more trees. Both the $100 fee and the $1,200 fee are a significant barrier to homeowners trying to prune and maintain their trees. As a

Page 300 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.
9 result, staff is proposing to create a new fee of $40 for a tree work permit if that tree work involves pruning or cabling a tree.
b. In addition, staff is recommending reduction of the fee for removal of 4 or more trees for homeowners from more than $1,200 to $150 plus 10% of the fee for each tree above 5 trees. These changes are more consistent with the level of staff work involved in these situations.

Conclusions
ClearSource performed a reasonableness test on the proposed fees using historical permit volume to forecast anticipated revenue from the fees. This test confirmed that the forecasted revenue from the fees did not exceed the actual staff costs associated with this work and should therefore be in line with State law. As with the previous Engineering and Building fee changes, the Planning fee study recommends monitoring permits, entitlement projects, and application volume and applicant feedback to determine if any of the fee modifications are resulting in any unanticipated changes in project frequency and to provide greater detail for future revenue forecasting. The study also recommends that fees should continue to be updated on an annual basis using the Consumer Price Index (CPI). This is typical of other jurisdictions in the region and also similar to how other City fees are administered in Folsom. As noted in the Engineering and Building fee study from May, the Planning fee study also recommends that a comprehensive fee study should be conducted periodically to ensure fee levels remain at or below legal limits and are consistent with evolving practices and local conditions.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
The fee study concluded that the proposed new Planning and Engineering fees could result in an estimated additional $120,000 annually for the General Fund , based on historical permit volume and development activity. Fee revenue could be higher or lower if actual experience differs from the assumptions used in the fee study.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 11356 – A Resolution to Amend Resolution No. 11186 and 11235 and Adopt an Amended User Fee Schedule for Community Development Planning and Engineering Services
a. Exhibit A – Amended Planning User Fees
b. Exhibit B – Amended Engineering and Arborist User Fees

2. Development Processing Fee Study- Planning Fees, dated April 2025

3. Development Processing Fee Study- Building and Engineering Fees, dated May 2024

4. Existing and Proposed Engineering Fees

5. Public Comments Received

Submitted,

____________________________

PAM JOHNS
Community Development Director

Page 301 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

Attachment 1

Page 302 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

RESOLUTION NO. 11356

A RESOLUTION TO AMEND RESOLUTION NO. 11186 AND 11235 AND ADOPT

AN AMENDED USER FEE SCHEDULE FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

PLANNING AND ENGINEERING SERVICES

WHEREAS, City of Folsom Municipal Code Section 3.50.020 states “The city manager is hereby directed to recommend to the council the adjustment of fees and charges to recover the percentage of costs reasonably borne in providing the regulation, products or services enumerated in this chapter and on the schedule of rate review as hereinafter established in this chapter”; and

WHEREAS, the City Council on April 22, 2025 , held a public hearing on the proposed fee updates for the Community Development Department and considered public comment; and

WHEREAS Resolution No. 11186 adopted by City Council on May 28, 2024, set the most recent User Fee schedule for the Community Development Department for Building and Engineering Services and directed staff to return with revised updates to Planning and Special Event fees; and

WHEREAS Resolution No. 11235 adopted by City Council on September 21, 2024, set the most recent Master Fee Schedule, which included minor updates to all user fees based on the Consumer Price Index including those of the Community Development Department; and

WHEREAS, the City had a consultant that performed a reasonableness test on the proposed fees and this test confirmed that fees do not exceed the actual staff costs associated with this work and are consistent with State law; and

WHEREAS, the proposed fees are in line with those charged by other jurisdictions in the Sacramento region; and

WHEREAS notice has been given at the time and in the manner required by State Law and City Code; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom hereby adopts Resolution No. 11356 including the amended user fee schedule for Community Development Planning and Engineering services, as shown in Exhibits “A” and “B”.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that those fees identified in Exhibit s “A” and “B” to Resolution No. 11356 shall be adjusted annually based on changes in the Consumer Price Index.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of April 2025, by the following roll-call vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s):

NOES: Councilmember(s):

ABSENT: Councilmember(s):

ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):

Resolution No. 11356

Page 1 of 11 ends

Page 303 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

__________________________________
Sarah Aquino, MAYOR

ATTEST:

____________________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK

Resolution No. 11356

Page 2 of 11 ends

Page 304 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

Exhibit A

Amended Planning User Fees

Resolution No. 11356

Page 3 of 11 ends

Resolution No. 11356

Page 3 of 11 ends

Resolution No. 11356

Page 3 of 11 ends

Page 305 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom

PLANNING FEES
# Description Fee Fee Structure Note
1 Annexation Processing $17,000 Deposit [a]
2 Appeal
a) Appeal of Staff Decision $2,500 Fixed Fee [b]
b) Appeal of Commission Decision $4,200 Fixed Fee [b]
3 Code Amendment $8,500 Fixed Fee
4 Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
a) CUP Review (Major) $5,100 Fixed Fee
b) CUP Review (Minor) $2,500 Fixed Fee
c) CUP Modification $2,500 Fixed Fee
5 Condominium Conversion Fee $17,000 Fixed Fee
6 Design Review/Architectural Review
a) New Multi-Family/Commercial Structure/Single-Family
Subdivision
$5,100 Fixed Fee
b) Existing Multi-Family/Commercial Structure $2,210 Fixed Fee c) New Single and Two Family Dwelling $800 Fixed Fee
d) Existing Single and Two Family Dwelling/Accessory
Structure/Non-Exempted ADU
$400 Fixed Fee
e) New Historic District Multi-Family/Commercial Structure $5,100 Fixed Fee f) Existing Historic District Multi-Family/Commercial Structure $2,210 Fixed Fee g) New Historic District Single Family, Two-Family Dwelling and Non-Exempted ADU
$800 Fixed Fee
h) Existing Historic District Single and Two Family
Dwelling/Accessory Structure/Demolition
$400 Fixed Fee
7 Development Agreement Processing $10,000 Deposit [a]
8 Entertainment Permit $200 Fixed Fee
9 Environmental Review
a) Environmental Impact Review & Report $10,000 Deposit [a],[c] b) Environmental Mitigation Program Monitoring $7,000 Deposit [a],[c] c) Initial Environmental Study/Assessment $7,000 Deposit [a],[c] d) Notice of CEQA Determination $300 Fixed Fee
Resolution No. 11356

Page 4 of 11 ends

Resolution No. 11356

Page 4 of 11 ends

Resolution No. 11356

Page 4 of 11 ends

Page 306 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom

PLANNING FEES
# Description Fee Fee Structure Note
10 General Plan
a) General Plan Amendment < 5 acres $10,000 Fixed Fee
b) General Plan Amendment 5 or more acres $13,000 Fixed Fee 11 Home Occupation Permit Fee $60 Fixed Fee
12 Indoor Marijuana Cultivation Permit $500 Fixed Fee
13 Landmark Tree Classification $350 Fixed Fee
14 Landmark Tree Declassification $1,800 Fixed Fee [d]
15 Large Family Day Care Home $100 Fixed Fee
16 Lot Line Adjustment/Parcel Merger - Planning $1,000 Fixed Fee [e] 17 Minor Administrative Modification $400 Fixed Fee
18 Non-Residential Plan Check Fee 10% of building permit fee Fixed Fee 19 Opinion on a Planning Matter $200 Fixed Fee
20 Preliminary Project Review $1,000 Fixed Fee
21 Planned Development
a) Planned Development Review
i) Base Fee $10,000 Fixed Fee
ii) Plus, Per Acre Fee $500 Fixed Fee
b) Planned Development Extension Review $3,000 Fixed Fee c) Planned Development Modification Review $5,000 Fixed Fee 22 Rezoning Request
a) Rezoning Request Review – 5 acres or less $10,000 Fixed Fee b) Rezoning Request Review – 5+ acres $13,000 Fixed Fee 23 Sidewalk Vendor Permit $50 Fixed Fee
Resolution No. 11356

Page 5 of 11 ends

Resolution No. 11356

Page 5 of 11 ends

Resolution No. 11356

Page 5 of 11 ends

Page 307 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom

PLANNING FEES
# Description Fee Fee Structure Note
24 Signs
a) Sign Permit - Staff $150 Fixed Fee
b) Sign Permit Extension $100 Fixed Fee
c) Special Event Sign Permit $100 Fixed Fee
d) Historic District Sign Review (Staff Level) $150 Fixed Fee e) Historic District Sign Review (Commission Level) $800 Fixed Fee f) Planned Development Sign Permit $2,500 Fixed Fee
g) Temporary Sign Permit $40 Fixed Fee
h) On-Site Subdivision Signs $200 Fixed Fee
i) Off-Site Subdivision Signs
i) base fee $300 Fixed Fee
ii) refundable deposit - per sign $500 Deposit
j) Off-Site Weekend Directional Signs
i) base fee $300 Fixed Fee
ii) refundable deposit $200 Deposit
k) Uniform Sign Program $400 Fixed Fee
25 Site Design Review
a) Site Design Review $400 Fixed Fee
b) Site Design Review – Planning Commission $5,100 Fixed Fee 26 Specific Plan
a) Specific Plan Review $15,500 Deposit
b) Specific Plan Amendment Review $10,300 Deposit
Resolution No. 11356

Page 6 of 11 ends

Resolution No. 11356

Page 6 of 11 ends

Resolution No. 11356

Page 6 of 11 ends

Page 308 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom

PLANNING FEES
# Description Fee Fee Structure Note
27 Street Name Review/Change $800 Fixed Fee
28 Temporary Outdoor Dining
a) Initial Permit (Additional Revocable Permit Fees Apply) $400 Fixed Fee b) Renewal $200 Fixed Fee
29 Temporary Use Permit $300 Fixed Fee
30 Tentative Map/Parcel/Subdivision Map
a) Tentative Parcel Map Review $7,700 Fixed Fee
b) Tentative Map Amendment Review $5,100 Fixed Fee
c) Tentative Map Extension Review $4,300 Fixed Fee
d) Tentative Subdivision Map Review
i) Base Fee $8,600 Fixed Fee
ii) Plus, Per Lot Fee $50 Fixed Fee
31 Unattended Donation Box
a) Initial Permit $300 Fixed Fee
b) Renewal $100 Fixed Fee
32 Variance
a) Variance Review – Single Family Dwelling $2,500 Fixed Fee b) Variance Review - Other $5,100 Fixed Fee
33 Zoning Verification Review $400 Fixed Fee
34 For Services Requested of City Staff which have no fee listed in this Master Fee Schedule, the City Manager or the City Manager's designee shall determine the appropriate fee based on the following hourly rates for staff time involved in the service or activity (per hour)
$200 Per Hour
[e] Additional fees apply for Engineering review. See Engineering fee schedule. * In addition to amounts shown above, applicant is responsible for all costs of outside agency review/services, including but not limited to, LAFCO, Board of Equalization Fees, Department of Fish and Wildlife Fees, etc. [a] The amount shown represents the initial deposit and minimum fee payable. The City reserves the right to collect additional amounts when costs exceed minimum fee/initial deposit. Any requests for additional amounts due will be supported by time & materials billings. [b] Depending on the subject of the appeal, specialized expertise may be solicited, at the expense of the applicant, for the purpose of providing input to the City Manager, Planning Commission, other Commission or Board, or City Council. [c] Applicant shall be responsible for additional costs of preparation of the required environment document. [d] For non-development related declassifications, the fee will be waived if the urban forester finds/agrees the tree is dead/dying with no reasonable expectation of recovery and poses a risk to persons/property. For development-related declassifications, fee is amount shown.

Resolution No. 11356

Page 7 of 11 ends

Resolution No. 11356

Page 7 of 11 ends

Resolution No. 11356

Page 7 of 11 ends

Page 309 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

Exhibit B

Amended Engineering and Arborist User Fees

Resolution No. 11356

Page 8 of 11 ends

Resolution No. 11356

Page 8 of 11 ends

Resolution No. 11356

Page 8 of 11 ends

Page 310 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom

ENGINEERING AND ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FEES
# Description Fee Fee Structure Note
1 Assessment District/CFD Payment Processing $4,800 Fixed Fee [c] 2 Encroachment Permit [c]
a) Encroachment Contract for Parking/Staging
i. 0-6 calendar days $50 Fixed Fee
ii. 7-14 calendar days $100 Fixed Fee
iii. 14+days $200 Fixed Fee
b) Utility Work/Connections (Individual Permits)
i. Wet Utilities/Service Connections Fixed Fee
a. Base Fee $200
b. Plus per LF of Trench in ROW/City Easement $5.00
ii. Dry Utilities (per site/location) Fixed Fee
a. Base Fee $200
b. Plus per LF of Trench in ROW/City Easement $5.00
iii. Misc. per LF of Trench in ROW/City Easement $5.00 Fixed Fee iv. Inspections and Testing (when applicable) $40 0 Fixed Fee c) Driveways/Minor Frontage Improvements
i. Residential (per driveway) $400 Fixed Fee
ii. Commercial (per driveway) $400 Fixed Fee
d) Pools and Spas (in ground) $400 Fixed Fee
e) Traffic Control/Equipment Staging
i. Isolated Site $200 Fixed Fee
ii. Multiple Closures/Staging $1,000 Fixed Fee
f) Permit Extensions
i. Active Work Zone $50 Fixed Fee
ii. Inactive Work Zone (4+ months inactivity) $20 0 Fixed Fee g) Annual Permits
i. Wet Utilities $6,000 Fixed Fee
ii. Dry Utilities $20,800 Fixed Fee
iii. General Maintenance/Misc. (Not Wet or Dry Utilities) T&M T&M [a] iv. Vegetation Management (Utilities) $20,800 Fixe d Fee v. Long Term/Revocable Encroachments (paid annually) $200 Fixed Fee h) Long Term/Revocable Encroachments (new permits only) $2,400 Fixed Fee [b] Resolution No. 11356

Page 9 of 11 ends

Resolution No. 11356

Page 9 of 11 ends

Page 311 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom

ENGINEERING AND ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FEES
# Description Fee Fee Structure Note
3 Engineering and Landscape Plan Check and Inspecti on (Fee Includes Up to 3 Cycle Reviews - Hourly Billing Applies for Reviews Required Beyond 3rd Cycle)

a) Project Value Up to $10,000 8.00% Fixed Fee
b) Project Value $10,001 - $100,000
i. Base Fee for First $10,000 $800 Fixed Fee
ii. Fee for Each Add'l $1 Up to $100,000 8.00% Fixe d Fee c) $100,001 - $199,999
i. Base Fee for First $100,000 $8,000 Fixed Fee
ii. Fee for Each Add'l $1 Up to $200,000 6.40% Fixe d Fee d) $200,001 - $299,999
i. Base Fee for First $200,000 $14,400 Fixed Fee
ii. Fee for Each Add'l $1 Up to $300,000 4.80% Fixe d Fee e) $300,000 or more
i. Base Fee for First $300,000 $19,200 Fixed Fee
ii. Fee for Each Add'l $1 3.60% Fixed Fee
f) Miscellaneous Landscape Plan Review
i. Non-Development Landscape Plan Review $200 Per Hour ii. New Custom Home $1,100 Fixed Fee
iii. Production Home/Subdivision (Typ. Tract Home) $0 $0 4 Final Map and Parcel Map [c]
a) Parcel Map Check $8,050 Fixed Fee
b) Final Map Check
i. Base Fee/Final Map Amendment $11,500 Fixed Fee
ii. Plus, Per Lot Fee $144 Fixed Fee
c) Certificate of Correction/Certificate of Compliance (including Parcel Mergers)
$2,000 T & M with
Initial Deposit
d) Lot Line Adjustment Check $8,050 Fixed Fee
5 Right of Ways (ROW) and Easements [c]
a) Review of ROW/Easement Documents $3,450 Fixed F ee
b) ROW/Easement Abandonment $5,750 Fixed Fee
6 Agreement Processing $5,750 Fixed Fee [c]
7 Transportation Permit (Per State Regulation)
a) Permit $16 Fixed Fee
b) Annual Permit $90 Fixed Fee
Resolution No. 11356

Page 10 of 11 ends

Resolution No. 11356

Page 10 of 11 ends

Page 312 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom

ENGINEERING AND ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FEES
# Description Fee Fee Structure Note
8 Tree Removal/Work Permit [c]
a) Permitted Pruning/Cabling $40 Fixed Fee
b) Permitted Removal/Work
i. Existing Occupied Structure
a. 0-4 Trees $100 Fixed Fee
b. 5+ Trees $150 + 10% per
tree above 5
Fixed Fee
c. "In Decline" Tree
(Requires City Arborist Concurrence)
$100 Fixed Fee
ii. New Construction (e.g. Custom Home, Subdivision, Parcel Map, Multi-family, Commercial, etc.):

a. 0-4 Trees $1,200 Fixed Fee
b. 5+ Trees
$1,400 + 10% per
tree above 5
Fixed Fee
iii. Misc. $200 Per Hour
c) w/o Permit (Does not include sanctions or mitigation) Double the Permit Rate
2x permit
amount
Fixed Fee
Other Fees for Service [c]
9 Research of Engineering Records $200 Per Hour
10 Miscellaneous Engineering Services $200 Per Hour
11 Excess Plan Review Fee (4th and subsequent) $200 Per Hour 12 Revisions $200 Per Hour
13 After Hours Inspection (per hour) (2-hour minimu m) $240 Per Hour 14 Re-inspection Fee (2nd Time or More) (each) $200 Each 15 Missed Inspection Fee $200 Each
16 Expedited Services Fee 1.5x Regular Fee Fixed Fee
17 Residential Landscape Review Hourly Rate of
Arborist
Per Hour
18 Technical Assistance/Third Party Review or Inspe ction Actual Cost T & M [a] Use time and materials with initial deposit to be determined by City Engineer, based on anticipated scope of work. [b] Encroachment agreement required in addition to insurance (e.g., parklets). [c] Fee is subject to annual updates based on changes to the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

Resolution No. 11356

Page 11 of 11 ends

Resolution No. 11356

Page 11 of 11 ends

Page 313 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

Attachment 2

Page 314 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.
1 1 A

CITY OF FOLSOM

Page 315 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO CITY OF FOLSOM

CONTENTS

REPORTING
Section Description Page #

1 TRANSMITTAL 1

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | Overall Findings 2

3 PROJECT ORIENTATION | Scope and Guidance 5

4 IMPLEMENTATION | Considerations for Implementation 9

APPENDICES
Appendix Description

A REGIONAL FEE COMPARISON

B COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS

C PROPOSED FEES

Page 316 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

April 2025

Attn: Pam Johns, Community Development Director
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630

Dear Ms. Johns:

ClearSource Financial Consulting submits the following report describing the findings of our preparation of a User and Regulatory Fee Study for the City of Folsom.

Please refer to the Executive Summary for the key findings of the analysis and estimated impacts to City funds. The balance of the report and its appendices provide the necessary documentation to support those outcomes.

Thank you for the opportunity to serve the City on this topic. We are happy to continue discussion on this study as the need arises or consult with you on additional topics.

Sincerely,

Page 317 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO THE CITY OF FOLSOM 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

STUDY OVERVIEW
The City of Folsom provides many services to ensure safe, orderly and aesthetically pleasing development and construction within the City. The broad categories of these services include, but are not limited to, project entitlement review, improvement plan check, map check, permits (building, grading, encroachment and driveway), and land action review (i.e. dedications, parcel mergers and lo t line adjustments). User fees and regulatory fees are the mechanism by which the City may recoup a portion of or all of the costs associated with these services.

The City of Folsom has completed a User and Regulatory Fee Study. California cities regularly conduct these studies to justify fee amounts imposed and to optimize the overall portfolio of revenues available to the municipality to fund its services.

Industry practice and fiscal conditions in the state have led most cities to link cost recovery for services of individual action, cause, or benefit to that same individual through user fee revenue, relieving the agency’s general revenues as much as possible for use toward services of broader community benefit.

USER AND REGULATORY FEES
Cities derive annual revenue from a numbe r of sources. These include, but are not limited to, property taxes, sales taxes, license fees, franchise fees, fines, rents, and user and regulatory fees. User and regulatory fees are intended to cover all, or a portion of, the costs incurred by the City for providing fee-related services and activities that are not otherwise provided to those not paying the fee.

California law provides guidance regarding the amounts the City may charge for fee-related services and activities. Specifically, in order to avoid being considered taxes, the fees charged shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the services, activities, or materials for which fees are charged.

COST RECOVERY POLICY AND PRACTICE
Recovering the costs of providing fee -related services directly influences the City’s fiscal health and increases the City’s ability to meet the service level expectations of fee payers.

The services for which the City imposes a user or regulatory fee typically derive from an individual person or entity’s action, request, or behavior. Therefore, except in cases where there is an overwhelming public benefit generated by the City’s involveme nt in the individual action, a fee for service ensures that the individual bears most, if not all, of the cost incurred by the City to provide that service . When a fee targets “100% or full cost recovery,” the individual bears the entirety of the cost. When a fee targets less than full cost recovery, another City revenue source – in most cases, the General Fund – subsidizes the individualized activity.

Page 318 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO THE CITY OF FOLSOM 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

FINDINGS AND PROPOSED ACTION
During the course of study, information and analysis was generated and is discussed substantively throughout this report and its technical appendices. However, summarized in the following findings statements by broad fee category, are outcomes and proposals of particular interest to City policymakers.

• Current fees recover less than the City’s full cost of providing fee-related services. • Staff is recommending adjustments to most fees to target full cost recovery. Exceptions to full cost recovery include certain appeals, minor reviews, permitting for certain temporary uses, etc.:
o Owner-occupied Appeal
o Minor Design Review
o Entertainment Permitting
o Landmark Tree Classification
o Opinion on a Planning Matter
o Preliminary Project Review
o Sidewalk Vendor Permit
o Temporary Outdoor Dining Permit
o Temporary Use Permit
o Variance for Single Family Dwelling
• Fees for some of the City’s more complex planning review projects are proposed to be administered using a “time and materials” billing approach. The City will collect an initial deposit and bill against that deposit for the costs of outside consultant review and support, and in-house labor efforts. If the deposit is drawn down before project completion, staff contacts the applicant to request replenishment of funds. If deposit amounts remain at the completion of the project, the applicant is refunded the unused deposit amount. Comprehensive tracking a nd billing for deposit-based projects should billing for project time such as:
o Intake and Initial Processing and Review
o Initial Meetings
o Project Correspondence
o Multiple Rounds of Review
o Report Preparation
o Decision Making, Meeting Preparation
o Project Close-Out and Documentation Actions

Page 319 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO THE CITY OF FOLSOM 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Regional Fee Comparison
• Similar fees are collected by communities throughout the region and the State. The proposed fee amounts do not exceed the City’s cost of service and are in -range of amounts charged by other jurisdictions. Regional fee comparison information is included in Appendix A of this report.

Additional Cost Recovery from Proposed Adjustments to Fees • The enhanced cost recovery anticipated from the proposed changes included in the fee schedule update is $120,000.

Fairly allocating costs to the services provided and recovering some, or all, of these costs from service recipients creates value and predictability for City customers and reimburses the City for services provided to a single party, as compared to the public at large. Collecting fees for services:
 Increases the availability of General Fund revenues to be used for services and activities available to all residents and businesses, such as public safety and public works services.  Helps meet fee-payer service level expectations by collecting fees to fund the existing level of services provided.

Please continue to the following technical report and appendices for further discussion of this User and Regulatory Fee Study.

Page 320 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO THE CITY OF FOLSOM 5

PROJECT ORIENTATION

SCOPE OF STUDY
The City of Folsom has completed a User and Regulatory Fee Study, which represents an external review of prevailing practices and development of an updated Schedule of User Fees and Charges. ClearSource Financial Consulting has prepared this analysis during Fiscal Year s 2023/24 and 2024/25 and will be available to answer questions as the City proceeds in implementing findings as it chooses.

Key tasks expected by the City from this study included the following:
 Review eligible fee-related services citywide to establish the reasonable relationship between current fees for service and the underlying costs of service.
 Calculate the full cost of service, including estimated citywide overhead costs.  Recommend fees to be charged for each service.
 Recommend cost recovery strategies and best practices in setting fees, while considering the complexities and demands of responsible programs or departments.  Identify underlying billable rates for cost recovery opportunities and as the basis for user fees.  Maintain a thoroughly documented analysis to ensure compliance with Proposition 26, and other statutes, as applicable.

DIRECT SERVICES UNDER REVIEW
Fee Categories
City fees under review in this project focused on direct services eligible for user fee methodology, as listed in the City’s published fee schedules . Additionally, the project was tasked with identifying any relevant additions for services performed without a fee or for under -quantified or ineffectively structured fees.

Current services shown in the City’s various prevailing fee schedules and addressed in this study are summarized as follows:
 Planning – Entitlement review, review for compliance with zoning code, planning permit issuance.

Page 321 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO THE CITY OF FOLSOM 6

PROJECT ORIENTATION

REASON FOR STUDY
Cities derive annual revenue from a numbe r of sources. These include, but are not limited to, property taxes, sales taxes, franchise fees, fines, rents, and user and regulatory fees. User and regulatory fees are intended to cover all, or a portion of, the costs incurred by a c ity for providing fee -related services and activities that are not otherwise provided to those not paying the fee.

California cities regularly conduct fee studies to justify fee amounts imposed and to optimize the overall body of revenues available to the municipality to fund its services. Widespread industry practice and fiscal conditions in the state have led most cities to link cost recovery for services of individual action, cause, or benefit to that individual through user fee revenue, relieving the agency’s general revenues for servic es of broader community benefit.

PREVAILING GUIDANCE
The objectives of this study, the methodology used to complete the study, and the formulation of outcomes and recommendations for future consideration were significantly influenced by Article 13C of the California Constitution and Section 66014 of the California Government Code.

Article 13C states that the local government bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a levy, charge, or other exaction is not a tax, that the amount is no more than necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the governmental act ivity, and that the manner in which those costs are allocated to a payer bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the payer’s burdens on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity. Additionally, Article 13C identifies the following as items th at are not defined as taxes:
 A charge imposed for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payer that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege.  A charge imposed for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payer that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or product.
 A charge imposed for the reasonable regulatory costs to a local government for issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections, and audits, enforcing agricultural marketing orders, and the administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof.  A charge imposed for entrance to or use of local government property, or the purchase, rental, or lease of local government property.
 A fine, penalty, or other monetary charge imposed by the judicial branch of government or a local government, as a result of a violation of law.
 A charge imposed as a condition of property development.

Page 322 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO THE CITY OF FOLSOM 7

PROJECT ORIENTATION
 Assessments and property-related fees imposed in accordance with the provisions of Article XIII D.

Section 66014(a) of the California Government Code includes the following, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when a local agency charges fees for zoning variances; zoning changes; use permits; building inspections; building permits; …the process ing of maps under the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act…; or planning services…; those fees may not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged, unless a question regarding the amount of the fee charged in excess of the estimated reasonable cost of providing the services or materials is submitted to, and approved by, a popular vote of two-thirds of those electors voting on the issue.

The outcomes and recommendations of the study are intended to comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws including providing confirmation that the proposed fees (“charges”) recommended as a result of this study are not taxes as defined in Articl e 13C of the California Constitution and that the proposed fees are no more than necessary to the cover the reasonable costs of the City’s activities and services addressed in the fees. Additionally, this report is intended to show that the manner in which the costs are allocated to a payer bear a fair and reasonable relationship to the payer’s burdens on, or benefits received from the activities and services provided by the City.

METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES
This study calculated the estimated reasonable cost of providing various fee -related services across the City organization. Generally, the estimated reasonable cost of providing the fee -related services and activities examined in this study can be calculated as the product of the composite fully-burdened hourly labor rate of the division responsible for providing services and the estimated labor time required to process a typical request for service.

The composite fully -burdened hourly rates calculated in this study are based on the estimated annual hours spent providing fee related services, and estimated labor, services and supplies, and citywide overhead expenditures, sourced as follows:
 Labor expenditures for in-house personnel were based on budgeted salary and benefits expenditures.  Contract service personnel and other services and supplies related costs were based on Fiscal Year 2023/24 adopted budgets and anticipated costs.
 Citywide overhead cost allocations were based on the City’s current overhead cost allocation plan.  Estimated labor time spent providing fee related services were developed based on interviews with City staff and are in-line with typical direct service ratios experienced by the consultant via studies of similar municipalities throughout California . Commonly used industry data also aided in the development of time estimates and proposed fee structures.

Once cost of service levels are identified, the City may use this information to inform tar geted cost recovery from fees. Fees set at the cost-of-service target full cost recovery. Fees set at any amount less than the cost-of-service target less than full cost recovery.

Page 323 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO THE CITY OF FOLSOM 8

PROJECT ORIENTATION
An illustration of the methods used in this analysis is shown in Exhibit 2.

EXHIBIT 2 | STEPS IN ANALYZING COSTS OF SERVICE AND USER FEES

COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS – PROCESS AND METHODS
1 ANNUAL LABOR TIME  IDENTIFY ANNUAL HOURS SPENT PROVIDING FEE SERVICES FOR EACH

PARTICIPATING DIVISION
 INFORMATION IS DEVELOPED AND TESTED USING A COMBINATION OF INTERVIEWS,

QUESTIONNAIRES, HISTORICAL PROJECT INFORMATION, AND HISTORICAL REVENUE

INFORMATION

2 ANNUAL EXPENDITURES  IDENTIFY ANNUAL COST OF PROVIDING FEE SERVICES FOR EACH PARTICIPATING

DIVISION
 INFORMATION IS DEVELOPED AND TESTED USING A COMBINATION OF INFORMATION FOUND IN THE CITY’S ADOPTED BUDGET, EXPENDITURE HISTORY, AND THE OVERHEAD COST PLAN.

3 FULLY BURDENED

HOURLY RATES
 CALCULATE THE ESTIMATED FULLY BURDENED HOURLY RATE USING INFORMATION FROM STEPS 1 AND 2

4 SERVICE/ACTIVITY LABOR
TIME
 ESTIMATE LABOR TIME REQUIRED TO PROCESS INDIVIDUAL REQUEST FOR SERVICE  INFORMATION IS DEVELOPED AND TESTED USING A COMBINATION OF INTERVIEWS,

QUESTIONNAIRES, COMMONLY USED MEASURES, AND INFORMATION DEVELOPED IN STEP 1

5 UNIT COST OF SERVICE  CALCULATE THE ESTIMATED COST OF SERVICE USING INFORMATION FROM STEPS 3 AND 4

6 CURRENT COST RECOVERY  CALCULATE CURRENT COST RECOVERY LEVEL FOR A SPECIFIC SERVICE

7 TARGETED COST

RECOVERY
 USE LAWS, INDUSTRY STANDARDS, GOALS AND POLICIES, AND HISTORICAL TRENDS

TO DETERMINE TARGETED COST RECOVERY

8 TEST FOR

REASONABLENESS
 TEST TO CONFIRM FORECAST REVENUE FROM FEES WILL NOT EXCEED PROGRAM COSTS
 USE HISTORICAL PERMIT VOLUME AND PROPOSED FEES TO FORECAST ANTICIPATED

REVENUE FROM FEES
 FORECASTED REVENUES SHOULD NOT EXCEED PROGRAM COSTS

Page 324 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO THE CITY OF FOLSOM 9

IMPLEMENTATION

CONSIDERATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
If the City decides to adopt or otherwise utilize outcomes generated through this study, it should:
 Update Systems for Fee Outcomes – Ensure that City staff begin using updated fees and associated outcomes once the updated schedule of fees becomes effective. Values should be included in all official fee schedules used throughout the City (e.g., departmental pamphlets, counter schedules, and online information). Additionally, ensure collections processes are updated, which may include coding in billing systems and training for personnel who handle fees directly with the public.  Actively Monitor the Use of Fees – In order to recover accurate and eligible amounts expected, the City should be diligent about tracking time to projects for time and materials billings and ensuring fees are applied in the correct amount and using the correct and intended basis for fixed fee billings.  Monitor Feedback and Permit Statistics – Monitor permit and application volume and applicant feedback to determine if fee modifications are resulting in any unanticipated changes in project frequency and to increase the level of detail available for revenue forecasting.  Annually Review and Adjust Fee Values – In order to generally maintain pace with regional cost inflation and/or the City’s salary cost inflation, the City should adjust its fees on an annual basis . A commonly used, reasonable inflation index is the annual change in the all-urban Consumer Price Index (CPI) representative of the region.
 Periodically Perform Comprehensive Analysis – A comprehensive fee study should be conducted periodically (e.g., every three to five years) to ensure fee levels remain at or below legal limits and are consistent with evolving service practices and local conditions.

Page 325 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO THE CITY OF FOLSOM 10

APPENDIX A

REGIONAL FEE COMPARISON
In order to provide the City Council with additional information as it considers potential adjustments to fees, current and proposed fees were compared to amounts collected by other agencies within the region.

City policymakers often consider fees established by oth er regional agencies for similar services when evaluating proposed fees.

The City of Folsom, consistent with other cities throughout the State, has an existing fee schedule that contemplates hundreds of potential unique requests for service. This can result in thousands of fee scenarios when comparing among multiple agencies. Consequently, an exhaustive comparison of the hundreds, and potentially thousands of scenarios is unrealistic. Instead, comparison information for several fee categories commonly seen from agency to agency are provided in order to provide City Council with a reasonable sense of changes expected. For Folsom, outcomes will show that new fees may range from low, mid, to upper end of regional fee spectrum depending on the service provided. This is common among municipalities due to differing levels of service and review included among various fee categories.

Planning Fee Comparison

Fee Description Folsom - Current
Folsom -
Proposed
Folsom -
Current Fee
Folsom -
Proposed Fee Elk Grove Rancho Cordova Rocklin Roseville Annexation Low End Mid-Range $5,789 $17,000 Deposit $18,800 $17,949 $20,000 Deposit Appeal Low End Low to Upper
Range
$257 - $522 $2,500 - $4,200 $2,500 - $5,000
Deposit
$2,590 - $4,383 $4,257 - $4,902 $2,080 - $5,530
Variance - SFR / Admin Low End Mid-Range $1,686 $2,500 $6,000 Deposit $10,000 Deposit $2,578 $1,530 Variance - All Other Low End Mid-Range $1,686 $5,100 $6,000 Deposit $10,000 Deposit $6,948 $5,124 Zone Change Low End Mid-Range $3,005 - $6,000 $10,000 - $13,000 $1,000 Deposit $15,000 Deposit $13,573 $10,000 - $17,000 Deposit
General Plan Amendment Low End Mid-Range $4,384 - $8,768 $10,000 - $13,000 $1,000 Deposit $15,000 Deposit $14,209 $10,000 - $17,000 Deposit
Conditional Use Permit Low End Low-Mid Range
Depending on
CUP
$2,821 - $5,950 $2,500 - $5,100 $5,000 - $10,000
Deposit
$10,000 Deposit $6,480 - $13,940 $9,000 Deposit

Page 326 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO THE CITY OF FOLSOM 11

APPENDIX B

COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS

Page 327 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

User and Regulatory Fees
Fee-Related Cost of Service Analysis

Page 328 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

Description Page
Cost of Service Allocation - Community Development Administration 3 Cost of Service Calculations 5
Cost Allocation - Citywide Overhead 16
City of Folsom
Cost of Service Analysis

Page 329 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

User and Regulatory Fees
Cost of Service Calculations
Community Development - Administration

Page 330 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Allocation of Divisional Expenses - Community Development - Administration Allocation of In-House Labor
Description Building
Code
Enforcement Engineering Planning Total Notes
Allocation of In-House Labor 46% 8% 25% 21% 100% [a]
FTE 11 2 6 5 24 [a]
Recurring Expenditures
Description Total Adjustments Total Building
Code
Enforcement Engineering Planning Total Notes
Salaries - Permanent 360,290 $ - $ 360,290 $ 165,133 $ 30,024 $ 90,073 $ 75,060 $ 360,290 $ [b] Annual Leave Account 5,197 $ - $ 5,197 $ 2,382 $ 433 $ 1,299 $ 1,083 $ 5,197 $ [b] FICA 29,650 $ - $ 29,650 $ 13,590 $ 2,471 $ 7,413 $ 6,177 $ 29,650 $ [b] PERS 139,520 $ - $ 139,520 $ 63,947 $ 11,627 $ 34,880 $ 29,067 $ 139,520 $ [b] Deferred Comp - City Paid 16,095 $ - $ 16,095 $ 7,377 $ 1,341 $ 4,024 $ 3,353 $ 16,095 $ [b] Automobile Allowance 6,000 $ - $ 6,000 $ 2,750 $ 500 $ 1,500 $ 1,250 $ 6,000 $ [b] Combined Benefits 55,022 $ - $ 55,022 $ 25,218 $ 4,585 $ 13,756 $ 11,463 $ 55,022 $ [b] Printing 4,000 $ - $ 4,000 $ 1,833 $ 333 $ 1,000 $ 833 $ 4,000 $ [b] Dues & Publications 5,500 $ - $ 5,500 $ 2,521 $ 458 $ 1,375 $ 1,146 $ 5,500 $ [b] Advertising 7,500 $ - $ 7,500 $ 3,438 $ 625 $ 1,875 $ 1,563 $ 7,500 $ [b] Rents 55,500 $ - $ 55,500 $ 25,438 $ 4,625 $ 13,875 $ 11,563 $ 55,500 $ [b] Training & Education 17,500 $ - $ 17,500 $ 8,021 $ 1,458 $ 4,375 $ 3,646 $ 17,500 $ [b] Postage 358 $ - $ 358 $ 164 $ 30 $ 90 $ 75 $ 358 $ [b] Telephone 2,500 $ - $ 2,500 $ 1,146 $ 208 $ 625 $ 521 $ 2,500 $ [b] Cellular 10,000 $ - $ 10,000 $ 4,583 $ 833 $ 2,500 $ 2,083 $ 10,000 $ [b] Internet 5,500 $ - $ 5,500 $ 2,521 $ 458 $ 1,375 $ 1,146 $ 5,500 $ [b] Travel and Meetings 2,000 $ - $ 2,000 $ 917 $ 167 $ 500 $ 417 $ 2,000 $ [b] Contracts 5,000 $ (5,000) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ [b];[c] Contracts - Pre Employment 500 $ - $ 500 $ 229 $ 42 $ 125 $ 104 $ 500 $ [b] Vehicle Maintenance 4,000 $ - $ 4,000 $ 1,833 $ 333 $ 1,000 $ 833 $ 4,000 $ [b] Equipment Maintenance 200 $ - $ 200 $ 92 $ 17 $ 50 $ 42 $ 200 $ [b] Advisory 10,000 $ (10,000) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ [b];[c] Computer - Hardware 17,000 $ - $ 17,000 $ 7,792 $ 1,417 $ 4,250 $ 3,542 $ 17,000 $ [b] Computer - Software 5,000 $ - $ 5,000 $ 2,292 $ 417 $ 1,250 $ 1,042 $ 5,000 $ [b] Computer - License & Mtnc 22,614 $ - $ 22,614 $ 10,365 $ 1,885 $ 5,654 $ 4,711 $ 22,614 $ [b] Office Supplies 5,000 $ - $ 5,000 $ 2,292 $ 417 $ 1,250 $ 1,042 $ 5,000 $ [b] Departmental Supplies 11,000 $ - $ 11,000 $ 5,042 $ 917 $ 2,750 $ 2,292 $ 11,000 $ [b] Petroleum Supplies 7,533 $ - $ 7,533 $ 3,453 $ 628 $ 1,883 $ 1,569 $ 7,533 $ [b] Insurance / Liability 18,824 $ - $ 18,824 $ 8,628 $ 1,569 $ 4,706 $ 3,922 $ 18,824 $ [b] Subtotal 828,803 $ (15,000) $ 813,803 $ 372,993 $ 67,817 $ 203,451 $ 169,542 $ 813,803 $ 46% 8% 25% 21% 100%
[a] Based on feedback received from Community Development Department. Amounts intended to serve as reasonable estimates. Allocated based on divisional FTE. [b] Source: FY 23/24 adopted budget.
[c] Adjustment to exclude non-fee related expenses.

Page 331 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

User and Regulatory Fees
Cost of Service Calculations
Planning

Page 332 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Allocation of Annual Labor Effort - Planning
Authorized Staffing
Position FTE
Total Hours
Per FTE
Less: Holiday
& Leave
Productive
Hours Per
Total
Productive Indirect Direct Total
Total
Indirect
Total Direct
Hours Total Hours Notes
Planner I (Assistant) / Planner II (Associate) 2.00 2,080 216 1,864 3,728 20% 80% 100% 746 2,982 3,728 [a];[b] Planning Manager 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 40% 60% 100% 746 1,118 1,864 [a];[b] Principal Planner 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 25% 75% 100% 466 1,398 1,864 [a];[b] Senior Planner 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 20% 80% 100% 373 1,491 1,864 [a];[b] Total 5.00 9,320 2,330 6,990 9,320 Total 25% 75% 100%
[a] Staffing based on FY 23/24 adopted budget
[b] Allocation of hours intended to serve as reasonable estimate. Amount may vary from year-to-year and position to position.

Page 333 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Allocation of Divisional Expenses - Planning
Recurring Divisional Expenditures [a]
Description Total Adjustments Total Notes
Salaries - Permanent 598,437 $ - $ 598,437 $ Annual Leave Account 8,513 $ - $ 8,513 $ FICA 47,441 $ - $ 47,441 $ PERS 237,225 $ - $ 237,225 $ Deferred Comp - City Paid 13,200 $ - $ 13,200 $ Combined Benefits 90,503 $ - $ 90,503 $ Contracts 125,000 $ (125,000) $ - $ [b] Insurance / Liability 37,648 $ - $ 37,648 $ Subtotal 1,157,967 $ (125,000) $ 1,032,967 $
Allocation of Department and Citywide Overhead
Description Total Adjustments Total Notes
Department Overhead 169,542 $ - $ 169,542 $ [c] Citywide Overhead 309,329 $ - $ 309,329 $ [c] Subtotal 478,872 $ - $ 478,872 $ Total
Description Total Notes
Recurring Divisional Expenditures 1,032,967 $
Department Overhead 169,542 $
Citywide Overhead 309,329 $
Subtotal 1,511,839 $
Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate
Description Total Note
Costs 1,511,839 $
Direct Hours 6,990 [c]
Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate 216 $
[a] Source: FY 23/24 adopted budget.
[b] Adjustment to exclude non-fee related amounts or amounts not used to inform hourly rate. [c] See separate worksheets in this model. Amounts intended to serve as reasonable estimates.

Page 334 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Planning Fees
Calculation of Estimated Cost of Service
Fee Description
Est. Labor
Hours
Hourly
Rate
Est. Cost of
Svc Current Fee
Current
Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed
Cost
Recovery
Fee
Structure
Fee
Change Note
1 Annexation Processing 80.0 x $216 = $17,280 $5,789 34% $17,000 100% Deposit $11,211 [a] 2 Appeal
a) Appeal of Staff Decision - Owner Occupied 20.0 x $216 = $4,320 $258 6% $2,500 58% Fixed Fee $2,242 [b] b) Appeal of Staff Decision - by Developer/Other 20.0 x $216 = $4,320 $515 12% $2,500 58% Fixed Fee $1,985 [b] c) Appeal of Commission Decision - Owner Occupied 28.0 x $216 = $6,048 $257 4% $4,200 69% Fixed Fee $3,943 [b] d) Appeal of Commission Decision - by Developer/Other 28.0 x $216 = $6,048 $522 9% $4,200 69% Fixed Fee $3,678 [b] 3 Code Amendment 40.0 x $216 = $8,640 $2,297 27% $8,500 98% Fixed Fee $6,203 4 Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
a) CUP Review (Major) 24.0 x $216 = $5,184 $5,950 115% $5,100 98% Fixed Fee ($850) b) CUP Review (Minor) 12.0 x $216 = $2,592 $2,821 109% $2,500 96% Fixed Fee ($321) c) CUP Modification 12.0 x $216 = $2,592 $1,647 64% $2,500 96% Fixed Fee $853 5 Condominium Conversion Fee 80.0 x $216 = $17,280 $11,709 68% $17,000 98% Fixed Fee $5,291 6 Design Review/Architectural Review
a) New Multi-Family/Commercial Structure/Single-Family Subdivision 24.0 x $216 = $5,184 $2,210 43% $5,100 98% Fixed Fee $2,890 b) Existing Multi-Family/Commercial Structure 12.0 x $216 = $2,592 $2,210 85% $2,210 85% Fixed Fee $0 c) New Single and Two Family Dwelling 6.0 x $216 = $1,296 $63 5% $800 62% Fixed Fee $737 d) Existing Single and Two Family Dwelling/Accessory Structure/Non-Exempted ADU 3.0 x $216 = $648 $63 10% $400 62% Fixed Fee $337 e) New Historic District Multi-Family/Commercial Structure 24.0 x $216 = $5,184 $2,210 43% $5,100 98% Fixed Fee $2,890 f) Existing Historic District Multi-Family/Commercial Structure 16.0 x $216 = $3,456 $2,210 64% $2,210 64% Fixed Fee $0 g) New Historic District Single Family, Two-Family Dwelling and Non-Exempted ADU 16.0 x $216 = $3,456 $63 2% $800 23% Fixed Fee $737 h) Existing Historic District Single and Two Family Dwelling/Accessory Structure/Demolition

12.0 x $216 = $2,592 $63 2% $400 15% Fixed Fee $337
7 Development Agreement Processing 48.0 x $216 = $10,368 $5,405 52% $10,000 100% Deposit $4,595 [a] 8 Entertainment Permit 2.0 x $216 = $432 $46 11% $200 46% Fixed Fee $154

Page 335 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Planning Fees
Calculation of Estimated Cost of Service
Fee Description
Est. Labor
Hours
Hourly
Rate
Est. Cost of
Svc Current Fee
Current
Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed
Cost
Recovery
Fee
Structure
Fee
Change Note
9 Environmental Review
a) Environmental Impact Review & Report 48.0 x $216 = $10,368 $8,748 84% $10,000 100% Deposit $1,252 [a],[c] b) Environmental Mitigation Program Monitoring 36.0 x $216 = $7,776 $6,449 83% $7,000 100% Deposit $551 [a],[c] c) Initial Environmental Study/Assessment 36.0 x $216 = $7,776 $6,512 84% $7,000 100% Deposit $488 [a],[c] d) Notice of CEQA Determination 1.5 x $216 = $324 $304 94% $300 93% Fixed Fee ($4) 10 General Plan
a) General Plan Amendment < 5 acres 48.0 x $216 = $10,368 $4,384 42% $10,000 96% Fixed Fee $5,616 b) General Plan Amendment 5 or more acres 64.0 x $216 = $13,824 $8,768 63% $13,000 94% Fixed Fee $4,232 11 Home Occupation Permit Fee 0.3 x $216 = $65 $31 48% $60 93% Fixed Fee $29 12 Indoor Marijuana Cultivation Permit 2.5 x $216 = $540 $253 47% $500 93% Fixed Fee $247 13 Landmark Tree Classification 6.5 x $216 = $1,404 $295 21% $350 25% Fixed Fee $55 14 Landmark Tree Declassification 8.5 x $216 = $1,836 $295 16% $1,800 98% Fixed Fee $1,505 [d] 15 Large Family Day Care Home 0.5 x $216 = $108 $26 24% $100 93% Fixed Fee $74 16 Lot Line Adjustment/Parcel Merger - Planning 5.0 x $216 = $1,080 $1,015 94% $1,000 93% Fixed Fee ($15) [e] 17 Minor Administrative Modification 2.0 x $216 = $432 $0 0% $400 93% Fixed Fee $400 18 Non-Residential Plan Check Fee 10.0% 10.0% 10% of
building
permit fee
100% 10% of
building
permit fee
100% Fixed Fee 0%
19 Opinion on a Planning Matter 2.0 x $216 = $432 $258 60% $200 46% Fixed Fee ($58) 20 Preliminary Project Review 12.0 x $216 = $2,592 $656 25% $1,000 39% Fixed Fee $344 21 Planned Development
a) Planned Development Review
i) Base Fee 48.0 x $216 = $10,368 $9,175 88% $10,000 96% Fixed Fee $825 ii) Plus, Per Acre Fee 2.5 x $216 = $540 $458 85% $500 93% Fixed Fee $42 b) Planned Development Extension Review 16.0 x $216 = $3,456 $3,217 93% $3,000 87% Fixed Fee ($217) c) Planned Development Modification Review 24.0 x $216 = $5,184 $9,162 177% $5,000 96% Fixed Fee ($4,162)

Page 336 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Planning Fees
Calculation of Estimated Cost of Service
Fee Description
Est. Labor
Hours
Hourly
Rate
Est. Cost of
Svc Current Fee
Current
Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed
Cost
Recovery
Fee
Structure
Fee
Change Note
22 Rezoning Request
a) Rezoning Request Review – 5 acres or less 48.0 x $216 = $10,368 $3,005 29% $10,000 96% Fixed Fee $6,995 b) Rezoning Request Review – 5+ acres 64.0 x $216 = $13,824 $6,000 43% $13,000 94% Fixed Fee $7,000 23 Sidewalk Vendor Permit 2.0 x $216 = $432 $50 12% $50 12% Fixed Fee $0 24 Signs
a) Sign Permit - Staff 0.7 x $216 = $151 $129 85% $150 99% Fixed Fee $21 b) Sign Permit Extension 0.5 x $216 = $108 $60 56% $100 93% Fixed Fee $40 c) Special Event Sign Permit 0.5 x $216 = $108 $63 58% $100 93% Fixed Fee $37 d) Historic District Sign Review (Staff Level) 0.7 x $216 = $151 $63 42% $150 99% Fixed Fee $87 e) Historic District Sign Review (Commission Level) 4.0 x $216 = $864 $63 7% $800 93% Fixed Fee $737 f) Planned Development Sign Permit 12.0 x $216 = $2,592 $1,286 50% $2,500 96% Fixed Fee $1,214 g) Temporary Sign Permit 0.2 x $216 = $43 $10 23% $40 93% Fixed Fee $30 h) On-Site Subdivision Signs 1.0 x $216 = $216 $126 58% $200 93% Fixed Fee $74 i) Off-Site Subdivision Signs
i) base fee 1.5 x $216 = $324 $171 53% $300 93% Fixed Fee $129 ii) refundable deposit - per sign n/a x $216 = $500 $500 Deposit $0 j) Off-Site Weekend Directional Signs
i) base fee 1.5 x $216 = $324 $175 54% $300 93% Fixed Fee $125 ii) refundable deposit n/a x $216 = $200 $200 Deposit $0 k) Uniform Sign Program 2.0 x $216 = $432 $295 68% $400 93% Fixed Fee $105 25 Site Design Review
a) Site Design Review 2.0 x $216 = $432 $302 70% $400 93% Fixed Fee $98 b) Site Design Review – Planning Commission 24.0 x $216 = $5,184 $4,794 92% $5,100 98% Fixed Fee $306 26 Specific Plan
a) Specific Plan Review 72.0 x $216 = $15,552 $6,432 41% $15,500 100% Deposit $9,068 b) Specific Plan Amendment Review 48.0 x $216 = $10,368 $7,076 68% $10,300 99% Deposit $3,224 27 Street Name Review/Change 4.0 x $216 = $864 $1,256 145% $800 93% Fixed Fee ($456)

Page 337 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Planning Fees
Calculation of Estimated Cost of Service
Fee Description
Est. Labor
Hours
Hourly
Rate
Est. Cost of
Svc Current Fee
Current
Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Proposed
Cost
Recovery
Fee
Structure
Fee
Change Note
28 Temporary Outdoor Dining
a) Initial Permit (Additional Revocable Permit Fees Apply) 4.0 x $216 = $864 $302 35% $400 46% Fixed Fee $98 b) Renewal 2.0 x $216 = $432 $302 70% $200 46% Fixed Fee ($102) 29 Temporary Use Permit 2.0 x $216 = $432 $65 15% $300 69% Fixed Fee $235 30 Tentative Map/Parcel/Subdivision Map
a) Tentative Parcel Map Review 36.0 x $216 = $7,776 $5,710 73% $7,700 99% Fixed Fee $1,990 b) Tentative Map Amendment Review 24.0 x $216 = $5,184 $9,515 184% $5,100 98% Fixed Fee ($4,415) c) Tentative Map Extension Review 20.0 x $216 = $4,320 $4,087 95% $4,300 100% Fixed Fee $213 d) Tentative Subdivision Map Review
i) Base Fee 40.0 x $216 = $8,640 $6,718 78% $8,600 100% Fixed Fee $1,882 ii) Plus, Per Lot Fee 0.3 x $216 = $54 $34 63% $50 93% Fixed Fee $16 31 Unattended Donation Box
a) Initial Permit 1.5 x $216 = $324 $201 62% $300 93% Fixed Fee $99 b) Renewal 0.5 x $216 = $108 $49 45% $100 93% Fixed Fee $51 32 Variance
a) Variance Review – Single Family Dwelling 24.0 x $216 = $5,184 $1,686 33% $2,500 48% Fixed Fee $814 b) Variance Review - Other 24.0 x $216 = $5,184 $1,686 33% $5,100 98% Fixed Fee $3,414 33 Zoning Verification Review 2.0 x $216 = $432 $310 72% $400 93% Fixed Fee $90 34 For Services Requested of City Staff which have no fee listed in this Master Fee Schedule, the City Manager or the City Manager's designee shall determine the appropriate fee based on the following hourly rates for staff time involved in the service or activity (per hour)

1.0 x $216 = $216 $101 47% $200 93% Per Hour $99
* In addition to amounts shown above, applicant is responsible for all costs of outside agency review/services, including but not limited to, LAFCO, Board of Equalization Fees, Department of Fish and Wildlife Fees, etc. [c] Applicant shall be responsible for additional costs of preparation of the required environment document. [e] Additional fees apply for Engineering review. See Engineering fee schedule. [d] For non-development related declassifications, the fee will be waived if the urban forester finds/agrees the tree is dead/dying with no reasonable expectation of recovery and poses a risk to persons/property. For development- related declassifications, fee is amount shown.
[b] Depending on the subject of the appeal, specialized expertise may be solicited, at the expense of the applicant, for the purpose of providing input to the City Manager, Planning Commission, other Commission or Board, or City [a] The amount shown represents the initial deposit and minimum fee payable. The City reserves the right to collect additional amounts when costs exceed minimum fee/initial deposit. Any requests for additional amounts due will be supported by time & materials billings.

Page 338 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
Planning Fees
Illustration of Current Fees, Maximum Fees, and Proposed Fees # Description
Proposed
Fee Structure
Current
Fee
Cost of Service
(Max. Fee)
Proposed Fee /
Deposit
Current Cost
Recovery
Proposed Cost
Recovery Note
1 Annexation Processing Deposit $5,789 $17,280 $17,000 34% 100% [a] 2 Appeal
Appeal of Staff Decision Fixed Fee $258 $4,320 $2,500 6% 58% [b] Appeal of Commission Decision Fixed Fee $522 $6,048 $4,200 9% 69% [b] 3 Code Amendment Fixed Fee $2,297 $8,640 $8,500 27% 98% 4 Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
a) CUP Review (Major) Fixed Fee $5,950 $5,184 $5,100 115% 98% b) CUP Review (Minor) Fixed Fee $2,821 $2,592 $2,500 109% 96% c) CUP Modification Fixed Fee $1,647 $2,592 $2,500 64% 96% 5 Condominium Conversion Fee Fixed Fee $11,709 $17,280 $17,000 68% 98% 6 Design Review/Architectural Review
a) New Multi-Family/Commercial Structure/Single-Family Subdivision Fixed Fee $2,210 $5,184 $5,100 43% 98% b) Existing Multi-Family/Commercial Structure Fixed Fee $2,210 $2,592 $2,210 85% 85% c) New Single and Two Family Dwelling Fixed Fee $63 $1,296 $800 5% 62% d) Existing Single and Two Family Dwelling/Accessory Structure/Non- Exempted ADU
Fixed Fee $63 $648 $400 10% 62%
e) New Historic District Multi-Family/Commercial Structure Fixed Fee $2,210 $5,184 $5,100 43% 98% f) Existing Historic District Multi-Family/Commercial Structure Fixed Fee $2,210 $3,456 $2,210 64% 64% g) New Historic District Single Family, Two-Family Dwelling and Non- Exempted ADU
Fixed Fee $63 $3,456 $800 2% 23%
h) Existing Historic District Single and Two Family Dwelling/Accessory Structure/Demolition
Fixed Fee $63 $2,592 $400 2% 15%
7 Development Agreement Processing Deposit $5,405 $10,368 $10,000 52% 100% [a] 8 Entertainment Permit Fixed Fee $46 $432 $200 11% 46%
9 Environmental Review
a) Environmental Impact Review & Report Deposit $8,748 $10,368 $10,000 84% 100% [a],[c] b) Environmental Mitigation Program Monitoring Deposit $6,449 $7,776 $7,000 83% 100% [a],[c] c) Initial Environmental Study/Assessment Deposit $6,512 $7,776 $7,000 84% 100% [a],[c] d) Notice of CEQA Determination Fixed Fee $304 $324 $300 94% 93%

Page 339 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
Planning Fees
Illustration of Current Fees, Maximum Fees, and Proposed Fees # Description
Proposed
Fee Structure
Current
Fee
Cost of Service
(Max. Fee)
Proposed Fee /
Deposit
Current Cost
Recovery
Proposed Cost
Recovery Note
10 General Plan
a) General Plan Amendment < 5 acres Fixed Fee $4,384 $10,368 $10,000 42% 96% b) General Plan Amendment 5 or more acres Fixed Fee $8,768 $13,824 $13,000 63% 94% 11 Home Occupation Permit Fee Fixed Fee $31 $65 $60 48% 93% 12 Indoor Marijuana Cultivation Permit Fixed Fee $253 $540 $500 47% 93% 13 Landmark Tree Classification Fixed Fee $295 $1,404 $350 21% 25% 14 Landmark Tree Declassification Fixed Fee $295 $1,836 $1,800 16% 98% [d] 15 Large Family Day Care Home Fixed Fee $26 $108 $100 24% 93% 16 Lot Line Adjustment/Parcel Merger - Planning Fixed Fee $1,015 $1,080 $1,000 94% 93% [e] 17 Minor Administrative Modification Fixed Fee $0 $432 $400 0% 93% 18 Non-Residential Plan Check Fee Fixed Fee 10% of building permit fee
10% 10% of building
permit fee
100% 100%
19 Opinion on a Planning Matter Fixed Fee $258 $432 $200 60% 46% 20 Preliminary Project Review Fixed Fee $656 $2,592 $1,000 25% 39% 21 Planned Development
a) Planned Development Review
i) Base Fee Fixed Fee $9,175 $10,368 $10,000 88% 96%
ii) Plus, Per Acre Fee Fixed Fee $458 $540 $500 85% 93% b) Planned Development Extension Review Fixed Fee $3,217 $3,456 $3,000 93% 87% c) Planned Development Modification Review Fixed Fee $9,162 $5,184 $5,000 177% 96% 22 Rezoning Request
a) Rezoning Request Review – 5 acres or less Fixed Fee $3,005 $10,368 $10,000 29% 96% b) Rezoning Request Review – 5+ acres Fixed Fee $6,000 $13,824 $13,000 43% 94% 23 Sidewalk Vendor Permit Fixed Fee $50 $432 $50 12% 12%

Page 340 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
Planning Fees
Illustration of Current Fees, Maximum Fees, and Proposed Fees # Description
Proposed
Fee Structure
Current
Fee
Cost of Service
(Max. Fee)
Proposed Fee /
Deposit
Current Cost
Recovery
Proposed Cost
Recovery Note
24 Signs
a) Sign Permit - Staff Fixed Fee $129 $151 $150 85% 99% b) Sign Permit Extension Fixed Fee $60 $108 $100 56% 93% c) Special Event Sign Permit Fixed Fee $63 $108 $100 58% 93% d) Historic District Sign Review (Staff Level) Fixed Fee $63 $151 $150 42% 99% e) Historic District Sign Review (Commission Level) Fixed Fee $63 $864 $800 7% 93% f) Planned Development Sign Permit Fixed Fee $1,286 $2,592 $2,500 50% 96% g) Temporary Sign Permit Fixed Fee $10 $43 $40 23% 93%
h) On-Site Subdivision Signs Fixed Fee $126 $216 $200 58% 93% i) Off-Site Subdivision Signs
i) base fee Fixed Fee $171 $324 $300 53% 93%
ii) refundable deposit - per sign Deposit $500 $500
j) Off-Site Weekend Directional Signs
i) base fee Fixed Fee $175 $324 $300 54% 93%
ii) refundable deposit Deposit $200 $200
k) Uniform Sign Program Fixed Fee $295 $432 $400 68% 93% 25 Site Design Review
a) Site Design Review Fixed Fee $302 $432 $400 70% 93%
b) Site Design Review – Planning Commission Fixed Fee $4,794 $5,184 $5,100 92% 98% 26 Specific Plan
a) Specific Plan Review Deposit $6,432 $15,552 $15,500 41% 100% b) Specific Plan Amendment Review Deposit $7,076 $10,368 $10,300 68% 99% 27 Street Name Review/Change Fixed Fee $1,256 $864 $800 145% 93% 28 Temporary Outdoor Dining
a) Initial Permit (Additional Revocable Permit Fees Apply) Fixed Fee $302 $864 $400 35% 46% b) Renewal Fixed Fee $302 $432 $200 70% 46%
29 Temporary Use Permit Fixed Fee $65 $432 $300 15% 69%

Page 341 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
Planning Fees
Illustration of Current Fees, Maximum Fees, and Proposed Fees # Description
Proposed
Fee Structure
Current
Fee
Cost of Service
(Max. Fee)
Proposed Fee /
Deposit
Current Cost
Recovery
Proposed Cost
Recovery Note
30 Tentative Map/Parcel/Subdivision Map
a) Tentative Parcel Map Review Fixed Fee $5,710 $7,776 $7,700 73% 99% b) Tentative Map Amendment Review Fixed Fee $9,515 $5,184 $5,100 184% 98% c) Tentative Map Extension Review Fixed Fee $4,087 $4,320 $4,300 95% 100% d) Tentative Subdivision Map Review
i) Base Fee Fixed Fee $6,718 $8,640 $8,600 78% 100%
ii) Plus, Per Lot Fee Fixed Fee $34 $54 $50 63% 93%
31 Unattended Donation Box
a) Initial Permit Fixed Fee $201 $324 $300 62% 93%
b) Renewal Fixed Fee $49 $108 $100 45% 93%
32 Variance
a) Variance Review – Single Family Dwelling Fixed Fee $1,686 $5,184 $2,500 33% 48% b) Variance Review - Other Fixed Fee $1,686 $5,184 $5,100 33% 98% 33 Zoning Verification Review Fixed Fee $310 $432 $400 72% 93% 34 For Services Requested of City Staff which have no fee listed in this Master Fee Schedule, the City Manager or the City Manager's designee shall determine the appropriate fee based on the following hourly rates for staff time involved in the service or activity (per hour)
Per Hour $101 $216 $200 47% 93%
[e] Additional fees apply for Engineering review. See Engineering fee schedule. * In addition to amounts shown above, applicant is responsible for all costs of outside agency review/services, including but not limited to, LAFCO, Board of Equalization Fees, Department of Fish and Wildlife Fees, etc. [a] The amount shown represents the initial deposit and minimum fee payable. The City reserves the right to collect additional amounts when costs exceed minimum fee/initial deposit. Any requests for additional amounts due will be supported by time & materials billings.
[b] Depending on the subject of the appeal, specialized expertise may be solicited, at the expense of the applicant, for the purpose of providing input to the City Manager, Planning Commission, other Commission or Board, or City Council.[c] Applicant shall be responsible for additional costs of preparation of the required environment document. [d] For non-development related declassifications, the fee will be waived if the urban forester finds/agrees the tree is dead/dying with no reasonable expectation of recovery and poses a risk to persons/property. For development- related declassifications, fee is amount shown.

Page 342 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

User and Regulatory Fees
Cost of Service Calculations
Allocation of Citywide Overhead

Page 343 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee Analysis
Estimated Citywide Overhead (for Cost of Service Calculation Purposes Only) Central Service Center - General Fund Allocation [a]
Department Annual Expenses Notes
City Council $117,437
City Manager $1,256,732
City Attorney $1,234,309
City Clerk $681,049
Human Resources $886,511
Management and Budget $6,246,759
Fleet Management $1,674,868
Total $12,097,665
City Staffing Position Total [a],[b]
Department Total
Adjustment for
Direct Svc Depts
Only
Adjusted Staffing
for Cwide OH
Alloc
Share of Cwide
OH Alloc Cwide OH Alloc Notes
City Council 5.00 (5.00) - 0% - $ City Manager 4.00 (4.00) - 0% - $ City Attorney 4.00 (4.00) - 0% - $ City Clerk 3.00 (3.00) - 0% - $ Community Development 27.00 - 27.00 6% 736,498 $ Fire Department 90.00 - 90.00 20% 2,454,994 $ Human Resources 6.00 (6.00) - 0% - $ Library 12.00 - 12.00 3% 327,333 $ Management and Budget 25.00 (25.00) - 0% - $ Parks and Recreation 49.00 - 49.00 11% 1,336,608 $ Police Department 113.50 - 113.50 26% 3,096,020 $ Public Works 34.55 - 34.55 8% 942,445 $ Water Resources 58.00 - 58.00 13% 1,582,107 $ Solid Waste 59.45 - 59.45 13% 1,621,660 $ Total 490.50 (47.00) 443.50 100% $ 12,097,665 Estimated Citywide Alloc to Community Development Direct Service Units Dept/Division
Share of
Allocation
Share of
Allocation Notes
Building 20% 147,300 $ [c]
Code Enforcement 8% 58,920 $ [c]
Engineering 30% 220,949 $ [c]
Planning 42% 309,329 $ [c]
Total 100% 736,498 $
[a] Source: FY 23/24 adopted budget.
[b] Indirect cost allocation basis is staffing levels of direct service departments. [c] Based on feedback received from Community Development Department. Amounts intended to serve as reasonable estimates. * This represents a conservative indirect cost rate calculation. This estimate was developed for purposes of user and regulatory fee cost of service analysis. As part of day-to-day operations, staff may categorize, assign, or quantify indirect costs using different criteria and methods.

Page 344 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO THE CITY OF FOLSOM 12

APPENDIX C

PROPOSED FEES

Page 345 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom

Page 346 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom

Page 347 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom

Page 348 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom

Page 349 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

Attachment 3

Page 350 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.
1 1 A

CITY OF FOLSOM

Page 351 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO CITY OF FOLSOM

CONTENTS

REPORTING
Section Description Page #

1 TRANSMITTAL 1

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | Overall Findings 2

3 PROJECT ORIENTATION | Scope and Guidance 5

4 IMPLEMENTATION | Considerations for Implementation 9

APPENDICES
Appendix Description

A REGIONAL FEE COMPARISON

B COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS

C PROPOSED FEES

Page 352 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

May 2024

Attn: Pam Johns, Community Development Director
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630

Dear Ms. Johns:

ClearSource Financial Consulting submits the following report describing the findings of our preparation of a User and Regulatory Fee Study for the City of Folsom.

Thank you for the opportunity to serve the City on this topic. We are happy to continue discussion on this study as the need arises or consult with you on additional topics.

Sincerely,

Page 353 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO THE CITY OF FOLSOM 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Page 354 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO THE CITY OF FOLSOM 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Building Fees
• Current fees recover less than the City’s full cost of providing fee-related services. o The Division collects approximately $ 2,845,000 annually in fee revenues. Fee -related expenditures are anticipated to be approximately $3,468,000. This results in an aggregate cost recovery level of 82% and a General Fund subsidy of approximately $622,000. o Full cost recovery is targeted for building fees.

Land Development Engineering Fees and Encroachment Permit Fees • Current fees recover less than the City’s full cost of providing fee -related services. Many of the City’s current fees are fixed at amounts that reflect less than the City’s cost of providing services (examples include, but are not limited to, tree permitting and landscape plan review). o The Division collects approximately $ 2,400,000 annually in fee revenues. Fee -related expenditures are approximately $ 2,880,000. This results in an aggregate cost recovery level of 83% and a General Fund subsidy of approximately $480,000. • Recalibrate fees to encourage cost recovery of City staff and outside service provider costs. • Full cost recovery is targeted from engineering and encroachment permit fees.

Deposit-Based Engineering Fees (i.e., Time & Materials Billings) • Fees for some of the City’s more complex land development review projects are proposed to be administered using a “time and materials” billing approach. The City will collect an initial deposit and bill against that deposit for the costs of outside consultant review and support, and in-house labor efforts. If the deposit is drawn down before project completion, staff contacts the applicant to request replenishment of funds. If deposit amounts remain at the completion of the project, the applicant is refunded the unused deposit amount. Comprehensive tracking and billing for deposit-based projects should billing for project time such as:
o Intake and Initial Processing and Review
o Initial Meetings
o Project Correspondence

Page 355 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO THE CITY OF FOLSOM 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
o Multiple Rounds of Review
o Report Preparation
o Decision Making, Meeting Preparation
o Project Close-Out and Documentation Actions

Regional Fee Comparison
• Similar fees are collected by communities throughout the region and the State. The proposed fee amounts do not exceed the City’s cost of service and are in -range of amounts charged by other jurisdictions. Regional fee comparison information is included in Appendix A of this report.

Additional Cost Recovery from Proposed Adjustments to Fees • The enhanced cost recovery anticipated from the proposed changes included in the fee schedule update is $1,100,000.

Please continue to the following technical report and appendices for further discussion of this User and Regulatory Fee Study.

Page 356 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO THE CITY OF FOLSOM 5

PROJECT ORIENTATION

SCOPE OF STUDY
The City of Folsom has completed a User and Regulatory Fee Study, which represents an external review of prevailing practices and development of an updated Schedule of User Fees and Charges. ClearSource Financial Consulting has prepared this analysis during Fiscal Year 2023/24 and will be available to answer questions as the City proceeds in implementing findings as it chooses.

Current services shown in the City’s various prevailing fee schedules and addressed in this study are summarized as follows:
 Engineering – Services include encroachment permitting, development plan review and inspection.  Building – Building plan review, permitting, and inspection for construction and sub-trades.

Page 357 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO THE CITY OF FOLSOM 6

PROJECT ORIENTATION

Page 358 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO THE CITY OF FOLSOM 7

PROJECT ORIENTATION
 Assessments and property-related fees imposed in accordance with the provisions of Article XIII D.

Page 359 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO THE CITY OF FOLSOM 8

PROJECT ORIENTATION
An illustration of the methods used in this analysis is shown in Exhibit 2.

EXHIBIT 2 | STEPS IN ANALYZING COSTS OF SERVICE AND USER FEES

COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS – PROCESS AND METHODS
1 ANNUAL LABOR TIME  IDENTIFY ANNUAL HOURS SPENT PROVIDING FEE SERVICES FOR EACH

PARTICIPATING DIVISION
 INFORMATION IS DEVELOPED AND TESTED USING A COMBINATION OF INTERVIEWS,

QUESTIONNAIRES, HISTORICAL PROJECT INFORMATION, AND HISTORICAL REVENUE

INFORMATION

2 ANNUAL EXPENDITURES  IDENTIFY ANNUAL COST OF PROVIDING FEE SERVICES FOR EACH PARTICIPATING

DIVISION
 INFORMATION IS DEVELOPED AND TESTED USING A COMBINATION OF INFORMATION FOUND IN THE CITY’S ADOPTED BUDGET, EXPENDITURE HISTORY, AND THE OVERHEAD COST PLAN.

3 FULLY BURDENED

HOURLY RATES
 CALCULATE THE ESTIMATED FULLY BURDENED HOURLY RATE USING INFORMATION FROM STEPS 1 AND 2

4 SERVICE/ACTIVITY LABOR
TIME
 ESTIMATE LABOR TIME REQUIRED TO PROCESS INDIVIDUAL REQUEST FOR SERVICE  INFORMATION IS DEVELOPED AND TESTED USING A COMBINATION OF INTERVIEWS,

QUESTIONNAIRES, COMMONLY USED MEASURES, AND INFORMATION DEVELOPED IN STEP 1

5 UNIT COST OF SERVICE  CALCULATE THE ESTIMATED COST OF SERVICE USING INFORMATION FROM STEPS 3 AND 4

6 CURRENT COST RECOVERY  CALCULATE CURRENT COST RECOVERY LEVEL FOR A SPECIFIC SERVICE

7 TARGETED COST

RECOVERY
 USE LAWS, INDUSTRY STANDARDS, GOALS AND POLICIES, AND HISTORICAL TRENDS

TO DETERMINE TARGETED COST RECOVERY

8 TEST FOR

REASONABLENESS
 TEST TO CONFIRM FORECAST REVENUE FROM FEES WILL NOT EXCEED PROGRAM COSTS
 USE HISTORICAL PERMIT VOLUME AND PROPOSED FEES TO FORECAST ANTICIPATED

REVENUE FROM FEES
 FORECASTED REVENUES SHOULD NOT EXCEED PROGRAM COSTS

Page 360 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO THE CITY OF FOLSOM 9

IMPLEMENTATION

Page 361 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO THE CITY OF FOLSOM 10

APPENDIX A

City policymakers often consider fees established by oth er regional agencies for similar services when evaluating proposed fees.

Engineering Fee Comparison

Building Fee Comparison

Fee Description Folsom - Current
Folsom -
Proposed
Folsom -
Current Fee
Folsom -
Proposed Fee Elk Grove Rancho Cordova Rocklin Roseville Engineering
Plan Check and Inspection
Improvement Value Up to
$100K
Mid-Range Mid-Range 6% - 7% 8% 10.5% - 18% 7% 21% 5%
Engineering
Plan Check and Inspection
Improvement Value $100K -
$200K
Mid-Range Mid-Range 5% 6.40% 8.5% - 10% 5% 11% 5%
Engineering
Plan Check and Inspection
Improvement Value $200K -
$1M
Mid-Range Mid-Range 2% - 4% 3.6% - 4.8% 6% - 8.5% 2% - 4% 6% - 8% 5% Fee Description Folsom - Current
Folsom -
Proposed
Folsom -
Current Fee
Folsom -
Proposed Fee Rancho Cordova Rocklin Roseville
$25,000 Mid-Range Mid-Range $330 $368 $375 $456 $158
$50,000 Mid-Range Mid-Range $530 $644 $600 $751 $757
$100,000 Mid-Range Mid-Range $880 $1,104 $1,050 $1,158 $1,162 $500,000 Mid-Range Mid-Range $3,280 $4,048 varies
(res v. non-res)
$3,697 varies
(res v. non-res)
$1,000,000 Mid-Range Mid-Range $6,030 $7,360 $7,511 $6,417 $6,180 * Fee amounts shown are for illustrative purposes. Actual fees collected will vary depending on services reviewed (e.g., new construction, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, structural, general plan update, technology fees, etc.). Amounts are intended to illustrate patterns and order of magnitude.

Page 362 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO THE CITY OF FOLSOM 11

APPENDIX B

COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS

Page 363 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

User and Regulatory Fees
Fee-Related Cost of Service Analysis
Appendix B: p. 1

Page 364 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

Description Page
Cost of Service Allocation - Community Development Administration 3 Cost of Service Calculations
Engineering and Encroachment Permits 5
Building 14
General Plan / Zoning Code Update 24
Cost Allocation - Citywide Overhead 26
City of Folsom
Cost of Service Analysis
Appendix B: p. 2

Page 365 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

User and Regulatory Fees
Cost of Service Calculations
Community Development - Administration
Appendix B: p. 3

Page 366 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Allocation of Divisional Expenses - Community Development - Administration Allocation of In-House Labor
Description Building
Code
Enforcement Engineering Planning Total Notes
Allocation of In-House Labor 46% 8% 25% 21% 100% [a]
FTE 11 2 6 5 24 [a]
Recurring Expenditures
Description Total Adjustments Total Building
Code
Enforcement Engineering Planning Total Notes
Salaries - Permanent 360,290$ -$ 360,290$ 165,133$ 30,024$ 90,073$ 75,060$ 360,290$ [b] Annual Leave Account 5,197$ -$ 5,197$ 2,382$ 433$ 1,299$ 1,083$ 5,197$ [b] FICA 29,650$ -$ 29,650$ 13,590$ 2,471$ 7,413$ 6,177$ 29,650$ [b] PERS 139,520$ -$ 139,520$ 63,947$ 11,627$ 34,880$ 29,067$ 139,520$ [b] Deferred Comp - City Paid 16,095$ -$ 16,095$ 7,377$ 1,341$ 4,024$ 3,353$ 16,095$ [b] Automobile Allowance 6,000$ -$ 6,000$ 2,750$ 500$ 1,500$ 1,250$ 6,000$ [b] Combined Benefits 55,022$ -$ 55,022$ 25,218$ 4,585$ 13,756$ 11,463$ 55,022$ [b] Printing 4,000$ -$ 4,000$ 1,833$ 333$ 1,000$ 833$ 4,000$ [b] Dues & Publications 5,500$ -$ 5,500$ 2,521$ 458$ 1,375$ 1,146$ 5,500$ [b] Advertising 7,500$ -$ 7,500$ 3,438$ 625$ 1,875$ 1,563$ 7,500$ [b] Rents 55,500$ -$ 55,500$ 25,438$ 4,625$ 13,875$ 11,563$ 55,500$ [b] Training & Education 17,500$ -$ 17,500$ 8,021$ 1,458$ 4,375$ 3,646$ 17,500$ [b] Postage 358$ -$ 358$ 164$ 30$ 90$ 75$ 358$ [b] Telephone 2,500$ -$ 2,500$ 1,146$ 208$ 625$ 521$ 2,500$ [b] Cellular 10,000$ -$ 10,000$ 4,583$ 833$ 2,500$ 2,083$ 10,000$ [b] Internet 5,500$ -$ 5,500$ 2,521$ 458$ 1,375$ 1,146$ 5,500$ [b] Travel and Meetings 2,000$ -$ 2,000$ 917$ 167$ 500$ 417$ 2,000$ [b] Contracts 5,000$ (5,000)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ [b];[c] Contracts - Pre Employment 500$ -$ 500$ 229$ 42$ 125$ 104$ 500$ [b] Vehicle Maintenance 4,000$ -$ 4,000$ 1,833$ 333$ 1,000$ 833$ 4,000$ [b] Equipment Maintenance 200$ -$ 200$ 92$ 17$ 50$ 42$ 200$ [b] Advisory 10,000$ (10,000)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ [b];[c] Computer - Hardware 17,000$ -$ 17,000$ 7,792$ 1,417$ 4,250$ 3,542$ 17,000$ [b] Computer - Software 5,000$ -$ 5,000$ 2,292$ 417$ 1,250$ 1,042$ 5,000$ [b] Computer - License & Mtnc 22,614$ -$ 22,614$ 10,365$ 1,885$ 5,654$ 4,711$ 22,614$ [b] Office Supplies 5,000$ -$ 5,000$ 2,292$ 417$ 1,250$ 1,042$ 5,000$ [b] Departmental Supplies 11,000$ -$ 11,000$ 5,042$ 917$ 2,750$ 2,292$ 11,000$ [b] Petroleum Supplies 7,533$ -$ 7,533$ 3,453$ 628$ 1,883$ 1,569$ 7,533$ [b] Insurance / Liability 18,824$ -$ 18,824$ 8,628$ 1,569$ 4,706$ 3,922$ 18,824$ [b] Subtotal 828,803$ (15,000)$ 813,803$ 372,993$ 67,817$ 203,451$ 169,542$ 813,803$ 46% 8% 25% 21% 100%
[a] Based on feedback received from Community Development Department. Amounts intended to serve as reasonable estimates. Allocated based on divisional FTE. [b] Source: FY 23/24 adopted budget.
[c] Adjustment to exclude non-fee related expenses.

Appendix B: p. 4

Page 367 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

User and Regulatory Fees
Cost of Service Calculations
Engineering and Encroachment Permits
Appendix B: p. 5

Page 368 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Allocation of Annual Labor Effort - Engineering
Authorized Staffing
Position FTE
Total Hours
Per FTE
Less: Holiday
& Leave
Productive
Hours Per
FTE
Total
Productive
Hours Indirect Direct Total
Total
Indirect
Hours
Total Direct
Hours Total Hours Notes
Urban Forestor 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 20% 80% 100% 373 1,491 1,864 [a];[b] City Engineer 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 65% 35% 100% 1,212 652 1,864 [a];[b] Senior Construction Inspector 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 20% 80% 100% 373 1,491 1,864 [a];[b] Engineering Tech I/II 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 30% 70% 100% 559 1,305 1,864 [a];[b] Senior Civil Engineer 2.00 2,080 216 1,864 3,728 25% 75% 100% 932 2,796 3,728 [a];[b] Total 6.00 11,184 3,448 7,736 11,184 Total 31% 69% 100%
Contract Services
Description Total Notes
Annual Contract Services 1,751,255$ [c]
Contract Services Share Est. Hrly Cost Notes
Inspection 50% 125$ [d]
Plan Review 50% 205$ [d]
Total 100% 165 [e]
Description Total Indirect Direct Indirect Direct Total Notes Contract Service Hours 10,614 10% 90% 1,061 9,552 10,614 [c] Divisional Total
Position Indirect Direct Total Notes
Authorized Staffing 3,448 7,736 11,184
Contract Services 1,061 9,552 10,614
Total 4,510 17,288 21,798
Total 21% 79% 100%
[a] Staffing based on FY 23/24 adopted budget
[b] Allocation of hours intended to serve as reasonable estimate. Amount may vary from year-to-year and position to position. [c] Source: Annual average FY 18/19 through FY 21/22.
[d] Amounts intended to serve as reasonable estimates of market rates for contract service providers. [e] Average hourly rate for contract services received.

Appendix B: p. 6

Page 369 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Allocation of Divisional Expenses - Engineering
Recurring Divisional Expenditures [a]
Description Total Adjustments Total Notes
Salaries - Permanent 740,794$ -$ 740,794$ Annual Leave Account 10,730$ -$ 10,730$ Uniform Allowance 675$ -$ 675$ FICA 58,782$ -$ 58,782$
PERS 295,014$ -$ 295,014$
Deferred Comp - City Paid 16,200$ -$ 16,200$ Combined Benefits 118,434$ -$ 118,434$ Contracts 690,000$ 1,061,255$ 1,751,255$ [b] Insurance / Liability 37,648$ -$ 37,648$ Subtotal 1,968,277$ 1,061,255$ 3,029,532$
Allocation of Department and Citywide Overhead
Description Total Adjustments Total Notes
Department Overhead 203,451$ -$ 203,451$ [c] Citywide Overhead 220,949$ -$ 220,949$ [c] Subtotal 424,400$ -$ 424,400$ Total
Description Total Notes
Recurring Divisional Expenditures 3,029,532$
Department Overhead 203,451$
Citywide Overhead 220,949$
Subtotal 3,453,932$
Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate
Description Total Note
Costs 3,453,932$
Direct Hours 17,288 [c]
Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate 200$
[a] Source: FY 23/24 adopted budget.
[b] Adjustment to align to FY 22/23 actual contract service expenditures. [c] See separate worksheets in this model. Amounts intended to serve as reasonable estimates.

Appendix B: p. 7

Page 370 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Engineering and Encroachment Permit Fees
Cost of Service Calculation
Fee Description
Est. Labor
Hours Hourly Rate
Est. Cost of
Svc Current Fee
Current Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed
Cost
Recovery Fee Structure Fee Change Note
1 Assessment District/CFD Payment Processing 24.00 x $200 = $4,800 $2,578 54% $4,800 100% Fixed Fee $2,222 2 Encroachment Permit
a) Encroachment Contract for Parking/Staging
i. 0-6 calendar days 0.25 x $200 = $50 $135 270% $50 100% Fixed Fee ($85) ii. 7-14 calendar days 0.50 x $200 = $100 $135 135% $100 100% Fixed Fee ($35) iii. 14+days 1.00 x $200 = $200 $135 68% $200 100% Fixed Fee $65 b) Utility Work/Connections (Individual Permits)
i. Wet Utilities/Service Connections 3.00 x $200 = $600 $135 23% $600 100% Fixed Fee $465 ii. Dry Utilities (per site/location) 1.00 x $200 = $200 $135 68% $200 100% Fixed Fee $65 iii. Misc. per LF of Trench in ROW/City Easement 0.03 x $200 = $5.00 $1.96 39% $5.00 100% Fixed Fee $3.04 iv. Inspections and Testing 2.00 x $200 = $400 $400 100% Fixed Fee c) Driveways/Minor Frontage Improvements
i. Residential (per driveway) 2.00 x $200 = $400 $135 34% $400 100% Fixed Fee $265 ii. Commercial (per driveway) 2.00 x $200 = $400 $135 34% $400 100% Fixed Fee $265 d) Pools and Spas (in ground) 2.00 x $200 = $400 $135 34% $400 100% Fixed Fee $265 e) Traffic Control/Equipment Staging
i. Isolated Site 1.00 x $200 = $200 $135 68% $200 100% Fixed Fee $65 ii. Multiple Closures/Staging 5.00 x $200 = $1,000 $135 14% $1,000 100% Fixed Fee $865 f) Permit Extensions
i. Active Work Zone 0.25 x $200 = $50 $135 270% $50 100% Fixed Fee ($85) ii. Inactive Work Zone (4+ months inactivity) 1.00 x $200 = $200 $135 68% $200 100% Fixed Fee $65 g) Annual Permits
i. Wet Utilities 30.00 x $200 = $6,000 $2,651 44% $6,000 100% Fixed Fee $3,349 ii. Dry Utilities 104.00 x $200 = $20,800 $2,651 13% $20,800 100% Fixed Fee $18,149 iii. General Maintenance/Misc. (Not Wet or Dry
Utilities)

30.00 x $200 = $6,000 $2,651 44% T&M Fixed Fee [a]
iv. Vegetation Management (Utilities) 104.00 x $200 = $20,800 $2,651 13% $20,800 100% Fixed Fee $18,149 v. Long Term/Revocable Encroachments (paid
annually)

1.00 x $200 = $200 $135 68% $200 100% Fixed Fee $65
h) Long Term/Revocable Encroachments (new
permits only)

12.00 x $200 = $2,400 $135 6% $2,400 100% Fixed Fee $2,265 [b] Appendix B: p. 8

Page 371 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Engineering and Encroachment Permit Fees
Cost of Service Calculation
Fee Description
Est. Labor
Hours Hourly Rate
Est. Cost of
Svc Current Fee
Current Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed
Cost
Recovery Fee Structure Fee Change Note
3 Engineering and Landscape Plan Check and Inspection
(Fee Includes Up to 3 Cycle Reviews - Hourly Billing
Applies for Reviews Required Beyond 3rd Cycle)
a) Project Value Up to $10,000 4.00 x $200 = $800 6.00% varies 8.00% varies Fixed Fee b) Project Value $10,001 - $100,000
i. Base Fee for First $10,000 4.00 x $200 = $800 $600 75% $800 100% Fixed Fee $200 ii. Fee for Each Add'l $1 Up to $100,000 8.00% 7.00% 88% 8.00% 100% Fixed Fee c) $100,001 - $199,999
i. Base Fee for First $100,000 40.00 x $200 = $8,000 $6,900 86% $8,000 100% Fixed Fee $1,100 ii. Fee for Each Add'l $1 Up to $200,000 6.40% 5.00% 78% 6.40% 100% Fixed Fee d) $200,001 - $299,999
i. Base Fee for First $200,000 72.00 x $200 = $14,400 $11,900 83% $14,400 100% Fixed Fee $2,500 ii. Fee for Each Add'l $1 Up to $300,000 4.80% 4.00% 83% 4.80% 100% Fixed Fee e) $300,000 or more
i. Base Fee for First $300,000 96.00 x $200 = $19,200 $15,900 83% $19,200 100% Fixed Fee $3,300 ii. Fee for Each Add'l $1 3.60% 2.00% 56% 3.60% 100% Fixed Fee f) Landscape Plan Review
i. Non-Development 1.00 x $200 = $200 $38 19% $200 100% Fixed Fee $162 ii. Custom Home 5.50 x $200 = $1,100 $414 38% $1,100 100% Fixed Fee $686 iii. Production Home/Subdivision 11.50 x $200 = $2,300 Valuation varies $2,300 100% Fixed Fee Varies iv. Model Home Complex 7.00 x $200 = $1,400 Valuation varies $1,400 100% Fixed Fee Varies v. Commercial, Streetscape, Other Development
Projects

8.00 x $200 = $1,600 $38 2% $1,600 100% Fixed Fee $1,562 vi. Development and Civil Improvements -
Landscaping Review

10.50 x $200 = $2,100 $38 2% $2,100 100% Fixed Fee $2,062 4 Final Map and Parcel Map
a) Parcel Map Check 28.00 x $288 = $8,050 $5,742 71% $8,050 100% Fixed Fee $2,308 b) Final Map Check
i. Base Fee/Final Map Amendment 40.00 x $288 = $11,500 $10,719 93% $11,500 100% Fixed Fee $781 ii. Plus, Per Lot Fee 0.50 x $288 = $144 $0 0% $144 100% Fixed Fee $144 c) Certificate of Correction/Certificate of Compliance 8.50 x $288 = $2,444 $2,899 varies $2,000 100% T & M with Initial Deposit
($899)
5 Right of Ways (ROW) and Easements
a) Review of ROW/Easement Documents 12.00 x $288 = $3,450 $1,334 39% $3,450 100% Fixed Fee $2,116 b) ROW/Easement Abandonment 20.00 x $288 = $5,750 $2,451 43% $5,750 100% Fixed Fee $3,299 6 Subdivision Agreement Processing 20.00 x $288 = $5,750 $1,083 19% $5,750 100% Fixed Fee $4,667 Appendix B: p. 9

Page 372 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

0.50 x $200 = $100 $38 38% $100 100% Fixed Fee $62
ii. New Construction (e.g. Custom Home,
Subdivision, Parcel Map, Multi-family, Commercial,
etc.):
a. 0-4 Trees 6.00 x $200 = $1,200 $38 3% $1,200 100% Fixed Fee $1,162 b. 5+ Trees 7.00 x $200 = $1,400 $38 3% $1,400 + 10% per tree above 5 trees.

Fixed Fee varies
iii. Misc. 1.00 x $200 = $200 $38 19% $200 100% Per Hour $162 b) w/o Permit (Does not include mitigation)
Double the Permit Rate

12.00 x $200 = $2,400 $438 18% 2x permit amount varies Fixed Fee Other Fees for Service
9 Research of Engineering Records 1.00 x $200 = $200 $103 52% $200 100% Per Hour $97 10 Miscellaneous Engineering Services 1.00 x $200 = $200 $103 52% $200 100% Per Hour $97 11 Excess Plan Review Fee (4th and subsequent) 1.00 x $200 = $200 n/a $200 100% Per Hour 12 Revisions 1.00 x $200 = $200 n/a $200 100% Per Hour
13 After Hours Inspection (per hour) (2-hour minimum) 1.20 x $200 = $240 $103 43% $240 100% Per Hour $137 14 Re-inspection Fee (2nd Time or More) (each) 0.50 x $200 = $100 n/a $100 100% Each 15 Missed Inspection Fee 0.50 x $200 = $100 n/a $100 100% Each 16 Expedited Services Fee 1.5x Regular Fee 1.5x Regular Fee Fixed Fee 17 Residential Landscape Review 1.00 x $200 = $200 Hourly Rate of Arborist
Hourly Rate of
Arborist
Per Hour
18 Technical Assistance/Third Party Review or Inspection Actual Cost Actual Cost T & M [a] Use time and materials with initial deposit to be determined by City Engineer, based on anticipated scope of work. [b] Encroachment agreement required in addition to insurance (e.g., parklets).

Appendix B: p. 10

Page 373 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
Engineering and Encroachment Permit Fees
Illustration of Current Fees, Maximum Fees, and Proposed Fees # Description
Proposed
Fee Structure
Current
Fee
Cost of Service
(Max. Fee) Proposed Fee
Current Cost
Recovery
Proposed Cost
Recovery Note
1 Assessment District/CFD Payment Processing Fixed Fee $2,578 $4,800 $4,800 54% 100% 2 Encroachment Permit
a) Encroachment Contract for Parking/Staging
i. 0-6 calendar days Fixed Fee $135 $50 $50 270% 100%
ii. 7-14 calendar days Fixed Fee $135 $100 $100 135% 100% iii. 14+days Fixed Fee $135 $200 $200 68% 100%
b) Utility Work/Connections (Individual Permits)
i. Wet Utilities/Service Connections Fixed Fee $135 $600 $600 23% 100% ii. Dry Utilities (per site/location) Fixed Fee $135 $200 $200 68% 100% iii. Misc. per LF of Trench in ROW/City Easement Fixed Fee $1.96 $5.00 $5.00 39% 100% iv. Inspections and Testing Fixed Fee $400 $400 100%
c) Driveways/Minor Frontage Improvements
i. Residential (per driveway) Fixed Fee $135 $400 $400 34% 100% ii. Commercial (per driveway) Fixed Fee $135 $400 $400 34% 100% d) Pools and Spas (in ground) Fixed Fee $135 $400 $400 34% 100% e) Traffic Control/Equipment Staging
i. Isolated Site Fixed Fee $135 $200 $200 68% 100%
ii. Multiple Closures/Staging Fixed Fee $135 $1,000 $1,000 14% 100% f) Permit Extensions
i. Active Work Zone Fixed Fee $135 $50 $50 270% 100%
ii. Inactive Work Zone (4+ months inactivity) Fixed Fee $135 $200 $200 68% 100% g) Annual Permits
i. Wet Utilities Fixed Fee $2,651 $6,000 $6,000 44% 100% ii. Dry Utilities Fixed Fee $2,651 $20,800 $20,800 13% 100% iii. General Maintenance/Misc. (Not Wet or Dry Utilities) Fixed Fee $2,651 $6,000 T&M 44% [a] iv. Vegetation Management (Utilities) Fixed Fee $2,651 $20,800 $20,800 13% 100% v. Long Term/Revocable Encroachments (paid annually) Fixed Fee $135 $200 $200 68% 100% h) Long Term/Revocable Encroachments (new permits only) Fixed Fee $135 $2,400 $2,400 6% 100% [b] Appendix B: p. 11

Page 374 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

a) Project Value Up to $10,000 Fixed Fee 6.00% $800 8.00% varies varies b) Project Value $10,001 - $100,000
i. Base Fee for First $10,000 Fixed Fee $600 $800 $800 75% 100% ii. Fee for Each Add'l $1 Up to $100,000 Fixed Fee 7.00% 8.00% 8.00% 88% 100% c) $100,001 - $199,999
i. Base Fee for First $100,000 Fixed Fee $6,900 $8,000 $8,000 86% 100% ii. Fee for Each Add'l $1 Up to $200,000 Fixed Fee 5.00% 6.40% 6.40% 78% 100% d) $200,001 - $299,999
i. Base Fee for First $200,000 Fixed Fee $11,900 $14,400 $14,400 83% 100% ii. Fee for Each Add'l $1 Up to $300,000 Fixed Fee 4.00% 4.80% 4.80% 83% 100% e) $300,000 or more
i. Base Fee for First $300,000 Fixed Fee $15,900 $19,200 $19,200 83% 100% ii. Fee for Each Add'l $1 Fixed Fee 2.00% 3.60% 3.60% 56% 100% f) Landscape Plan Review
i. Non-Development Fixed Fee $38 $200 $200 19% 100%
ii. Custom Home Fixed Fee $414 $1,100 $1,100 38% 100%
iii. Production Home/Subdivision Fixed Fee Valuation $2,300 $2,300 varies 100% iv. Model Home Complex Fixed Fee Valuation $1,400 $1,400 varies 100% v. Commercial, Streetscape, Other Development Projects Fixed Fee $38 $1,600 $1,600 2% 100% vi. Development and Civil Improvements - Landscaping Review Fixed Fee $38 $2,100 $2,100 2% 100% 4 Final Map and Parcel Map
a) Parcel Map Check Fixed Fee $5,742 $8,050 $8,050 71% 100% b) Final Map Check
i. Base Fee/Final Map Amendment Fixed Fee $10,719 $11,500 $11,500 93% 100% ii. Plus, Per Lot Fee Fixed Fee $0 $144 $144 0% 100%
c) Certificate of Correction/Certificate of Compliance T & M with Initial Deposit
$2,899 $2,444 $2,000 varies 100%
5 Right of Ways (ROW) and Easements
a) Review of ROW/Easement Documents Fixed Fee $1,334 $3,450 $3,450 39% 100% b) ROW/Easement Abandonment Fixed Fee $2,451 $5,750 $5,750 43% 100% 6 Subdivision Agreement Processing Fixed Fee $1,083 $5,750 $5,750 19% 100% Appendix B: p. 12

Page 375 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

a. 0-4 Trees Fixed Fee $38 $1,200 $1,200 3% 100%
b. 5+ Trees Fixed Fee $38 $1,400 $1,400 + 10% per tree above 5 trees.
3%
iii. Misc. Per Hour $38 $200 $200 19% 100%
b) w/o Permit (Does not include mitigation)
Double the Permit Rate
Fixed Fee $438 $2,400 2x permit amount 18% varies
Other Fees for Service
9 Research of Engineering Records Per Hour $103 $200 $200 52% 100% 10 Miscellaneous Engineering Services Per Hour $103 $200 $200 52% 100% 11 Excess Plan Review Fee (4th and subsequent) Per Hour n/a $200 $200 100% 12 Revisions Per Hour n/a $200 $200 100%
13 After Hours Inspection (per hour) (2-hour minimum) Per Hour $103 $240 $240 43% 100% 14 Re-inspection Fee (2nd Time or More) (each) Each n/a $100 $100 100% 15 Missed Inspection Fee Each n/a $100 $100 100%
16 Expedited Services Fee Fixed Fee 1.5x Regular Fee 1.5x Regular Fee 17 Residential Landscape Review Per Hour Hourly Rate of Arborist $200 Hourly Rate of Arborist 18 Technical Assistance/Third Party Review or Inspection T & M Actual Cost Actual Cost [a] Use time and materials with initial deposit to be determined by City Engineer, based on anticipated scope of work. [b] Encroachment agreement required in addition to insurance (e.g., parklets).

Appendix B: p. 13

Page 376 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

User and Regulatory Fees
Cost of Service Calculations
Building
Appendix B: p. 14

Page 377 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Allocation of Annual Labor Effort - Building
Authorized Staffing
Position FTE
Total Hours
Per FTE
Less: Holiday
& Leave
Productive
Hours Per
FTE
Total
Productive
Hours Indirect Direct Total
Total
Indirect
Hours
Total Direct
Hours Total Hours Notes
Building Inspector I/II 3.00 2,080 216 1,864 5,592 20% 80% 100% 1,118 4,474 5,592 [a];[b] Building Plans Coordinator 2.00 2,080 216 1,864 3,728 20% 80% 100% 746 2,982 3,728 [a];[b] Building Technician I/II 2.00 2,080 216 1,864 3,728 50% 50% 100% 1,864 1,864 3,728 [a];[b] Plan Check Engineer 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 20% 80% 100% 373 1,491 1,864 [a];[b] Building Inspection Supervisor 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 40% 60% 100% 746 1,118 1,864 [a];[b] Principal Civil Engineer 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 50% 50% 100% 932 932 1,864 [a];[b] Senior Civil Engineer 1.00 2,080 216 1,864 1,864 20% 80% 100% 373 1,491 1,864 [a];[b] Total 11.00 20,504 6,151 14,353 20,504 Total 30% 70% 100%
Position Indirect Direct Total
Building Inspector I/II 1,118 4,474 5,592
Building Plans Coordinator 746 2,982 3,728
Building Technician I/II 1,864 1,864 3,728
Plan Check Engineer 373 1,491 1,864
Building Inspection Supervisor 746 1,118 1,864
Principal Civil Engineer 932 932 1,864
Senior Civil Engineer 373 1,491 1,864
Total 6,151 14,353 20,504
Contract Services
Description Total Notes
Annual Contract Services 650,000$ [c]
Contract Services Share Est. Hrly Cost Notes
Inspection 33% 110$ [d]
Plan Review 67% 140$ [d]
Total 100% 130 [e]
Description Total Indirect Direct Indirect Direct Total Notes Contract Service Hours 5,000 10% 90% 500 4,500 5,000 [c] Divisional Total
Position Indirect Direct Total Notes
Authorized Staffing 6,151 14,353 20,504
Contract Services 500 4,500 5,000
Total 6,651 18,853 25,504
Total 26% 74% 100%
[a] Staffing based on FY 23/24 adopted budget
[b] Allocation of hours intended to serve as reasonable estimate. Amount may vary from year-to-year and position to position. [c] Source: Annual average FY 18/19 through FY 21/22.
[d] Amounts intended to serve as reasonable estimates of market rates for contract service providers. [e] Average hourly rate for contract services received.

Appendix B: p. 15

Page 378 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Allocation of Divisional Expenses - Building
Recurring Divisional Expenditures [a]
Description Total Adjustments Total Notes
Salaries - Permanent 1,032,925$ -$ 1,032,925$ Salaries - Temporary 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ Annual Leave Account 15,125$ -$ 15,125$ Uniform Allowance 2,025$ -$ 2,025$ FICA 82,121$ -$ 82,121$
PERS 412,624$ -$ 412,624$
Deferred Comp - City Paid 23,400$ -$ 23,400$ Combined Benefits 208,931$ -$ 208,931$ Contracts 265,000$ 385,000$ 650,000$ [b] Insurance / Liability 56,472$ -$ 56,472$ Subtotal 2,148,623$ 385,000$ 2,533,623$
Allocation of Department and Citywide Overhead
Description Total Adjustments Total Notes
Department Overhead 372,993$ -$ 372,993$ [c] Citywide Overhead 147,300$ -$ 147,300$ [c] Subtotal 520,293$ -$ 520,293$ Support from Other Departments
Description Total Adjustments Total Notes
Plan Review and Permit Support from Other Depts 65,000$ -$ 65,000$ [c] Annual In-House Technology Licensing 122,500$ -$ 122,500$ [c] Annual In-House Maintenance of Zoning Code, Plans and Reports, to Inform Development226,776$ -$ 226,776$ [c] Subtotal 414,276$ -$ 414,276$ Total
Description Total Notes
Recurring Divisional Expenditures 2,533,623$
Department Overhead 372,993$
Support from Other Departments 414,276$
Citywide Overhead 147,300$
Subtotal 3,468,191$
Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate
Description Total Note
Costs 3,468,191$
Direct Hours 18,853 [c]
Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate 184$
Appendix B: p. 16

Page 379 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Allocation of Divisional Expenses - Building
Cost Recovery Overview
Description Org Key Object
Actual
2012/13
Actual
2013/14
Actual
2014/15
Actual
2015/16
Actual
2016/17
Actual
2017/18
Actual
2018/19
Actual
2019/20
Actual
2020/21
Actual
2021/22 10-Year Avg Percentage Notes
Building Permit Fees 0102320 3224000 $1,090,143 $1,391,334 $1,435,293 $1,160,275 $1,215,167 $1,757,983 $2,022,669 $2,259,054 $3,143,495 $3,632,168 $1,910,758 67% Building Reinspection Fee 0102320 3440401 $1,320 $1,080 $2,400 $3,000 $2,405 $1,680 $1,330 $1,985 $240 $1,080 $1,652 0% Structure Plan Check Fees 0102320 3444100 $565,642 $866,826 $727,668 $966,213 $988,989 $839,076 $899,484 $919,517 $1,298,637 $1,234,323 $930,637 33% Seismic Training Fee 0102320 3444300 $897 $859 $766 $2,300 $1,864 $320 $2,413 $469 $0 $7,070 $1,696 0% State Bldg Standards Fund 0102320 3444400 $430 $638 $515 $550 $698 $403 $4,051 $331 $0 $3,338 $1,095 0% Total $1,658,432 $2,260,737 $2,166,642 $2,132,338 $2,209,123 $2,599,462 $2,929,947 $3,181,356 $4,442,372 $4,877,979 $2,845,839 100% Cost Recovery Analysis
Description Total Note
Average Revenues $2,845,839
Annualized Costs $3,468,191
Cost Recovery 82%
[a] Source: FY 23/24 adopted budget.
[b] Adjustment to align to FY 22/23 actual contract service expenditures. [c] See separate worksheets in this model. Amounts intended to serve as reasonable estimates.

Appendix B: p. 17

Page 380 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Building Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Fee Description Total Hourly Rate Cost of Svc Current Fee Current Est.

Cost Recovery
Proposed
Cost Recovery Proposed Fee Note
1 HVAC Change-Out - Residential 1.25 x $184 = $230 varies varies 100% $230 2 Water Heater Change-Out - Residential 1.00 x $184 = $184 varies varies 100% $184 3 Residential Re-Roof 2.00 x $184 = $368 varies varies 100% $368 4 Siding Replacement 1.75 x $184 = $322 varies varies 100% $322 5 Service Panel Upgrade - Residential 1.50 x $184 = $276 varies varies 100% $276 6 Battery Backup Storage 2.00 x $184 = $368 varies varies 100% $368 7 Electric Vehicle Charger 2.00 x $184 = $368 varies varies 100% $368 8 Generator 2.00 x $184 = $368 varies varies 100% $368
9 Residential Solar Photovoltaic System - Solar Permit
a) Plan Review
i) Base Fee for 15kW or Less varies varies $200 [a],[b] ii) Fee for Each Additional kW above 15kW varies varies $15 [a],[b] b) Permit varies varies $250 [a],[b]
10 Commercial Solar Photovoltaic System - Solar Permit
a) Plan Review
i) Base Fee 50kW or Less varies varies $444 [a],[b]
ii) Fee for Each Add'l kW above 50kW up to 250kW varies varies $7 [a],[b] ii) Fee for Each Add'l kW above 250kW varies varies $5 [a],[b] b) Permit varies varies $556 [a],[b]
11 Pool Solar 1.00 x $184 = $184 varies varies 100% $184 12 Swimming Pool Replaster / Equipment Change-Out 2.50 x $184 = $460 varies varies 100% $460 13 Swimming Pool Remodel (e.g., Changing Pool Shape,
Adding Cabo Shelf, etc.)

5.00 x $184 = $920 varies varies 100% $920
14 Retaining Wall
a) One Type of Retaining Wall Type/Configuration 3.00 x $184 = $552 varies varies 100% $552 b) Each Additional Wall Type/Configuration 1.50 x $184 = $276 varies varies 100% $276 15 Window / Sliding Glass Door - Retrofit / Repair
a) Up to 5 1.00 x $184 = $184 varies varies 100% $184
b) Per Window Over 5 Windows 0.20 x $184 = $37 varies varies 100% $37 16 Fences Requiring a Building Permit 2.00 x $184 = $368 varies varies 100% $368 Appendix B: p. 18

Page 381 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Building Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Fee Description Total Hourly Rate Cost of Svc Current Fee Current Est.

Cost Recovery
Proposed
Cost Recovery Proposed Fee Note
17 Electrical and Irrigation Pedestals per pedestal 1.50 x $184 = $276 varies varies 100% $276 18 Detached and Attached ADUs 25.00 x $184 = $4,600 varies varies 100% $4,600 19 Junior ADUs 12.00 x $184 = $2,208 varies varies 100% $2,208 [a] Total fees shall not exceed amounts outlined in California Government Code 66015(a)(1). [b] The City will not collect additional permit processing fees. Amounts shown are total amount due for permit processing, plan review, and permit.

Appendix B: p. 19

Page 382 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Building Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Fee Description
Est. City
Staff Labor
Hrs
Fully-
Burdened
Hourly
Est. Cost of
Service Current Fee
Current Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed
Cost
Recovery Unit Notes
Permit Fee for New Buildings, Additions, Tenant Improvements, Residential Remodels, and Combined Mechanical, Electrical, and/or Plumbing Permits
1 $1 - $2,000 0.75 x $184 = $138 $100 72% $138 100%
2 $2,001 - $25,000 0.75 x $184 = $138 $100 72% $138 100% 3 $25,001 - $50,000 2.00 x $184 = $368 $330 90% $368 100% 4 $50,001 - $100,000 3.50 x $184 = $644 $530 82% $644 100% 5 $100,001 - $500,000 6.00 x $184 = $1,104 $880 80% $1,104 100% 6 $500,001 - $1,000,000 22.00 x $184 = $4,048 $3,280 81% $4,048 100% 7 $1,000,001 - $5,000,000 40.00 x $184 = $7,360 $6,030 82% $7,360 100% 8 $5,000,001 - $10,000,000 160.00 x $184 = $29,440 $26,030 88% $29,440 100% 9 $10,000,001 - $10,000,000 260.00 x $184 = $47,840 $51,030 107% $47,840 100% Appendix B: p. 20

Page 383 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

1.5x standard plan check fee 1.5x standard plan check fee 100% c) Tract Home / Master Plan Construction (Production Units) 20% $150 varies 20% of standard plan check fee 100% [b] d) Production Permit for Multi-family permit 8.00 x $184 = $1,472 $150 10% $1,472 100% e) Production Permit for Fire permits and other misc. permits 2.50 x $184 = $460 $150 33% $460 100% f) Alternate Materials and Methods Review (per hour) 1.00 x $184 = $184 $184 100% g) Excess Plan Review Fee (4th and subsequent) (per hour) 1.00 x $184 = $184 $184 100% h) Revisions to an Approved Permit (per hour) 1.00 x $184 = $184 $184 100% i) Deferred Submittal (per hour) 1.00 x $184 = $184 $184 100% [a] Includes up to three plan checks. The City will bill hourly for additional plan review required. [b] For identical buildings built by the same builder on the same lot or in the same tract and for which building permits are issued at the same time.

Appendix B: p. 21

Page 384 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Building Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Fee Description
Est. City
Staff Labor
Hrs
Fully-
Burdened
Hourly
Est. Cost
of Service Current Fee
Current
Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed
Cost
Recovery Unit Notes
1 Permit Processing Fee 0.42 x $184 = $77 $77 100%
2 Strong Motion Instrumentation (SMI) Fee Calculation [a] a) Residential $0.50 or valuation x .00013 [a]
b) Commercial $0.50 or valuation x .00028 [a]
3 Building Standards (SB 1473) Fee Calculation (Valuation) [a] a) $1 - $25,000 $1 [a]
b) $25,001 - $50,000 $2 [a]
c) $50,001 - $75,000 $3 [a]
d) $75,001 - $100,000 $4 [a]
e) Each Add'l $25,000 or fraction thereof Add $1 [a]
4 Business License Fee $25 $25
5 CASP Training Fund Fee $3.60 $3.60
6 State Disability Access Fee $0.40 $0.40
7 General Plan/Zoning Code Update Fee (percent of building permit fee) 9% 5% 55% [b] 8 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (Phasing Plan) Fee 5.00 x $184 = $920 $920 100% 9 Permit Extension 0.50 x $184 = $92 $0 0%
10 Permit Reactivation Fee
a) Reactivation Fee if All Inspections Have Been Performed and Approved Up to But Not Including Final Inspection

1.00 x $184 = $184 $184 100%
b) Reactivation Fee - All Other Scenarios
i) Permit Expired Up to One Year 50% of Original Base Building Permit Fee ii) Permit Expired More than One Year 100% of Original Base Building Permit Fee 11 Permit Reissuance Fee 1.00 x $184 = $184 $184 100%
12 Damaged Building Survey (Fire, Flood, Vehicle Damage, Etc.) (per hour) 1.00 x $184 = $184 $184 100% Other Fees
13 Phased Inspection Fee (per inspection) 1.00 x $184 = $184 $184 100% 14 After Hours Inspection (per hour) (4-hour minimum) 1.20 x $184 = $221 $221 100% 15 Re-inspection Fee (2nd Time or More) (each) 1.00 x $184 = $184 $184 100% [c] Appendix B: p. 22

Page 385 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Building Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Fee Description
Est. City
Staff Labor
Hrs
Fully-
Burdened
Hourly
Est. Cost
of Service Current Fee
Current
Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed
Cost
Recovery Unit Notes
16 Missed Inspection Fee 1.00 x $184 = $184 $184 100%
17 Duplicate Copy of Permit 0.42 x $184 = $77 $77 100%
18 Duplicate Copy of Certificate of Occupancy 0.42 x $184 = $77 $77 100% 19 Fees for Services Not Listed in this Fee Schedule (per 1/2 hour) 0.50 x $184 = $92 $92 100% Violation Fees
20 Investigation Fee For Work Done Without Permits
(In addition to applicable permit fees)
equal to
permit fee
[a] Amounts established by State of California. In the case of discrepancy between this schedule and amounts established by the State, State amounts shall supersede these amounts. [b] Fee applies to new construction, additions, tenant improvements, and residential remodels requiring building permits. [c] Reinspection fee applies after the first re-inspection.

Appendix B: p. 23

Page 386 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

User and Regulatory Fees
Cost of Service Calculations
General Plan / Zoning Code Update
Appendix B: p. 24

Page 387 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Cost of Service Calculation - General Plan Update / Zoning Code Update Costs Estimated Expenditures
Description Total
Amortization /
Update
Frequency Annual Cost Cost Type Notes
General Plan Update 2,000,000$ 20 100,000$ Periodic [a];[b] Housing Element 500,000$ 8 62,500$ Periodic [a];[b] Zoning Code 500,000$ 5 100,000$ Periodic [a];[b] In-House Maintenance 226,776$ 1 226,776$ Annual [a];[c];[d] Total 3,226,776$ 489,276$
Cost Allocation
Description Total Share to Recover
Target
Cost Recovery Notes
Periodic Costs 262,500$ 67% 175,000$ [a];[e] Allocation Base
Description Total Notes
Estimated Building Permit Fees 1,910,758$ [f]
Fee at Full Cost Recovery
Description Total Notes
Target Recovery 175,000$
Estimated Building Permit Fees 1,910,758$
Total 9%
Cost Recovery Alternative Scenarios
Description Total Total Total Notes
% of Permit Fee 0% 5% 9%
Estimated Building Permit Fees 1,910,758$ 1,910,758$ 1,910,758$ Forecast Revenue -$ 95,538$ 175,000$ Annual Revenue Requirement 175,000$ 175,000$ 175,000$ Cost Recovery 0.00% 54.59% 100.00%
Notes:
[a] Source: Conservative estimates of update costs. Amounts will likely be higher. [b] Target recovery of periodic costs, or portion of periodic costs, via General Plan Update Fee. [c] Recover annual costs, or portion of annual costs, via standard permit and plan review fees. [d] Amount calculated via analysis of planning cost of service. Amount represents 15% of total annual planning costs. [e] Assumes portion of General Plan Update costs will continue to be paid via General Fund resources. [f] Amounts represents multi-year average of building permit fee collection.

Appendix B: p. 25

Page 388 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

User and Regulatory Fees
Cost of Service Calculations
Allocation of Citywide Overhead
Appendix B: p. 26

Page 389 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee Analysis
Estimated Citywide Overhead (for Cost of Service Calculation Purposes Only) Central Service Center - General Fund Allocation [a]
Department Annual Expenses Notes
City Council $117,437
City Manager $1,256,732
City Attorney $1,234,309
City Clerk $681,049
Human Resources $886,511
Management and Budget $6,246,759
Fleet Management $1,674,868
Total $12,097,665
City Staffing Position Total [a],[b]
Department Total
Adjustment for
Direct Svc Depts
Only
Adjusted Staffing
for Cwide OH Alloc
Share of Cwide OH
Alloc Cwide OH Alloc Notes
City Council 5.00 (5.00) - 0% -$ City Manager 4.00 (4.00) - 0% -$ City Attorney 4.00 (4.00) - 0% -$ City Clerk 3.00 (3.00) - 0% -$ Community Development 27.00 - 27.00 6% 736,498$ Fire Department 90.00 - 90.00 20% 2,454,994$ Human Resources 6.00 (6.00) - 0% -$ Library 12.00 - 12.00 3% 327,333$ Management and Budget 25.00 (25.00) - 0% -$ Parks and Recreation 49.00 - 49.00 11% 1,336,608$ Police Department 113.50 - 113.50 26% 3,096,020$ Public Works 34.55 - 34.55 8% 942,445$ Water Resources 58.00 - 58.00 13% 1,582,107$ Solid Waste 59.45 - 59.45 13% 1,621,660$ Total 490.50 (47.00) 443.50 100% $ 12,097,665 Estimated Citywide Alloc to Community Development Direct Service Units Dept/Division
Share of
Allocation
Share of
Allocation Notes
Building 20% 147,300$ [c]
Code Enforcement 8% 58,920$ [c]
Engineering 30% 220,949$ [c]
Planning 42% 309,329$ [c]
Total 100% 736,498$
[a] Source: FY 23/24 adopted budget.
[b] Indirect cost allocation basis is staffing levels of direct service departments. [c] Based on feedback received from Community Development Department. Amounts intended to serve as reasonable estimates. * This represents a conservative indirect cost rate calculation. This estimate was developed for purposes of user and regulatory fee cost of service analysis. As part of day-to-day operations, staff may categorize, assign, or quantify indirect costs using different criteria and methods.

Appendix B: p. 27

Page 390 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

CLEARSOURCE REPORT TO THE CITY OF FOLSOM 12

APPENDIX C

PROPOSED FEES

Page 391 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom

ENGINEERING AND ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FEES
# Description Fee Fee Structure Note
1 Assessment District/CFD Payment Processing $4,800 Fixed Fee 2 Encroachment Permit
a) Encroachment Contract for Parking/Staging
i. 0-6 calendar days $50 Fixed Fee
ii. 7-14 calendar days $100 Fixed Fee
iii. 14+days $200 Fixed Fee
b) Utility Work/Connections (Individual Permits)
i. Wet Utilities/Service Connections $600 Fixed Fee
ii. Dry Utilities (per site/location) $200 Fixed Fee
iii. Misc. per LF of Trench in ROW/City Easement $5.00 Fixed Fee iv. Inspections and Testing $400 Fixed Fee
c) Driveways/Minor Frontage Improvements
i. Residential (per driveway) $400 Fixed Fee
ii. Commercial (per driveway) $400 Fixed Fee
d) Pools and Spas (in ground) $400 Fixed Fee
e) Traffic Control/Equipment Staging
i. Isolated Site $200 Fixed Fee
ii. Multiple Closures/Staging $1,000 Fixed Fee
f) Permit Extensions
i. Active Work Zone $50 Fixed Fee
ii. Inactive Work Zone (4+ months inactivity) $200 Fixed Fee g) Annual Permits
i. Wet Utilities $6,000 Fixed Fee
ii. Dry Utilities $20,800 Fixed Fee
iii. General Maintenance/Misc. (Not Wet or Dry Utilities) T&M Fixed Fee [a] iv. Vegetation Management (Utilities) $20,800 Fixed Fee v. Long Term/Revocable Encroachments (paid annually) $200 Fixed Fee h) Long Term/Revocable Encroachments (new permits only) $2,400 Fixed Fee [b] Appendix C: p. 1

Page 392 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom

ENGINEERING AND ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FEES
# Description Fee Fee Structure Note
3 Engineering and Landscape Plan Check and Inspection
(Fee Includes Up to 3 Cycle Reviews - Hourly Billing Applies for

a) Project Value Up to $10,000 8.00% Fixed Fee
b) Project Value $10,001 - $100,000
i. Base Fee for First $10,000 $800 Fixed Fee
ii. Fee for Each Add'l $1 Up to $100,000 8.00% Fixed Fee c) $100,001 - $199,999
i. Base Fee for First $100,000 $8,000 Fixed Fee
ii. Fee for Each Add'l $1 Up to $200,000 6.40% Fixed Fee d) $200,001 - $299,999
i. Base Fee for First $200,000 $14,400 Fixed Fee
ii. Fee for Each Add'l $1 Up to $300,000 4.80% Fixed Fee e) $300,000 or more
i. Base Fee for First $300,000 $19,200 Fixed Fee
ii. Fee for Each Add'l $1 3.60% Fixed Fee
f) Landscape Plan Review
i. Non-Development $200 Fixed Fee
ii. Custom Home $1,100 Fixed Fee
iii. Production Home/Subdivision $2,300 Fixed Fee
iv. Model Home Complex $1,400 Fixed Fee
v. Commercial, Streetscape, Other Development Projects $1,600 Fixed Fee vi. Development and Civil Improvements - Landscaping
Review
$2,100 Fixed Fee
4 Final Map and Parcel Map
a) Parcel Map Check $8,050 Fixed Fee
b) Final Map Check
i. Base Fee/Final Map Amendment $11,500 Fixed Fee
ii. Plus, Per Lot Fee $144 Fixed Fee
c) Certificate of Correction/Certificate of Compliance $2,000 T & M with Initial Deposit

5 Right of Ways (ROW) and Easements
a) Review of ROW/Easement Documents $3,450 Fixed Fee
b) ROW/Easement Abandonment $5,750 Fixed Fee
6 Subdivision Agreement Processing $5,750 Fixed Fee
7 Transportation Permit
a) Permit $16 Fixed Fee
b) Annual Permit $90 Fixed Fee
Appendix C: p. 2

Page 393 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom

ENGINEERING AND ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FEES
# Description Fee Fee Structure Note
8 Tree Removal/Work Permit
a) Permitted Removal/Work
i. Existing Occupied Structure
a. 0-2 Trees $100 Fixed Fee
b. 3+ Trees: See New Construction Rate Below $1,200 Fixed Fee c. "In Decline" Tree
(Requires City Arborist Concurrence)
$100 Fixed Fee
ii. New Construction (e.g. Custom Home, Subdivision, Parcel Map, Multi-family, Commercial, etc.):

a. 0-4 Trees $1,200 Fixed Fee
b. 5+ Trees $1,400 + 10% per tree
above 5 trees.

Fixed Fee
iii. Misc. $200 Per Hour
b) w/o Permit (Does not include mitigation)
Double the Permit Rate
2x permit amount Fixed Fee
Other Fees for Service
9 Research of Engineering Records $200 Per Hour
10 Miscellaneous Engineering Services $200 Per Hour
11 Excess Plan Review Fee (4th and subsequent) $200 Per Hour 12 Revisions $200 Per Hour
13 After Hours Inspection (per hour) (2-hour minimum) $240 Per Hour 14 Re-inspection Fee (2nd Time or More) (each) $100 Each 15 Missed Inspection Fee $100 Each
16 Expedited Services Fee 1.5x Regular Fee Fixed Fee
17 Residential Landscape Review Hourly Rate of Arborist Per Hour 18 Technical Assistance/Third Party Review or Inspection Actual Cost T & M [a] Use time and materials with initial deposit to be determined by City Engineer, based on anticipated scope of work. [b] Encroachment agreement required in addition to insurance (e.g., parklets).

Appendix C: p. 3

Page 394 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom

BUILDING FEES
Fee Charge Basis Note CPI
1 HVAC Change-Out - Residential $230 per permit Y
2 Water Heater Change-Out - Residential $184 per permit Y 3 Residential Re-Roof $368 per permit Y
4 Siding Replacement $322 per permit Y
5 Service Panel Upgrade - Residential $276 per permit Y 6 Battery Backup Storage $368 per permit Y
7 Electric Vehicle Charger $368 per permit Y
8 Generator $368 per permit Y
9 Residential Solar Photovoltaic System - Solar Permit
a) Plan Review
i) Base Fee for 15kW or Less $200 per permit [a],[b] N
ii) Fee for Each Additional kW above 15kW $15 per permit [a],[b] N b) Permit $250 per permit [a],[b] N
10 Commercial Solar Photovoltaic System - Solar Permit
a) Plan Review
i) Base Fee 50kW or Less $444 per permit [a],[b] N
ii) Fee for Each Add'l kW above 50kW up to 250kW $7 per permit [a],[b] N ii) Fee for Each Add'l kW above 250kW $5 per permit [a],[b] N b) Permit $556 per permit [a],[b] N
11 Pool Solar $184 per permit Y
12 Swimming Pool Replaster / Equipment Change-Out $460 per permit Y 13 Swimming Pool Remodel (e.g., Changing Pool Shape,
Adding Cabo Shelf, etc.)
$920 per permit Y
14 Retaining Wall
a) One Type of Retaining Wall Type/Configuration $552 per permit Y b) Each Additional Wall Type/Configuration $276 per permit Y 15 Window / Sliding Glass Door - Retrofit / Repair
a) Up to 5 $184 per permit Y
b) Per Window Over 5 Windows $37 per permit Y
16 Fences Requiring a Building Permit $368 per permit Y 17 Electrical and Irrigation Pedestals per pedestal $276 per permit Y 18 Detached and Attached ADUs $4,600 per permit Y
19 Junior ADUs $2,208 per permit Y
[a] Total fees shall not exceed amounts outlined in California Government Code 66015(a)(1).

A. Fees for Commonly Requested Building Permit Types. Fees shown in this section (Section A.) include all applicable inspection, and plan review fees. Additional permit processing fees apply. Additional fees may apply for services provided by other City Departments (e.g. Planning Review), and Fees Collected on Behalf of Other Agencies (e.g. State of California).

Fee Description
[b] The City will not collect additional permit processing fees. Amounts shown are total amount due for permit processing, plan review, and permit.

Appendix C: p. 4

Page 395 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom

BUILDING FEES
Total Valuation Permit Fee CPI
$1 to $2,000 $138.00
$2,001 to $25,000 $138.00 for the first $2,000 plus $10.00 for each add'l $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000
N
$25,001 to $50,000 $368.00 for the first $25,000 plus $11.04 for each add'l $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000
N
$50,001 to $100,000 $644.00 for the first $50,000 plus $9.20 for each add'l $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000
N
$100,001 to $500,000 $1,104.00 for the first $100,000 plus $7.36 for each add'l $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000
N
$500,001 to $1,000,000 $4,048.00 for the first $500,000 plus $6.62 for each add'l $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000
N
$1,000,001 to $5,000,000 $7,360.00 for the first $1,000,000 plus $5.52 for each add'l $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $5,000,000
N
$5,000,001 and up $29,440.00 for the first $5,000,000 plus $4.11 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof over $5,000,000
N
● Project valuations shall be based on the total value of all construction work, including all finish work, roofing, electrical, plumbing, heating, air conditioning, elevators, fire-extinguishing systems and any other permanent equipment. If, in the opinion of the Building Official, the valuation is underestimated on the application, the permit shall be denied, unless the applicant can show detailed estimates to meet the approval of the Building Official. Final building permit valuation shall be set by the Building Official. For determining project valuations for new construction, the Building Official may use data published by the International Code Council (ICC) (building valuation data table, typically updated in February and August of each year). The final building permit valuation shall be set at an amount that allows the City to recover its costs of applicant plan check, permit and inspection activities.

Note: For construction projects with permit fees calculated using Section B, additional fees apply for permit issuance. Additional fees may apply for services provided by other City Departments (e.g. Planning Review), and Fees Collected on Behalf of Other Agencies (e.g. State of California). Additional fees apply for plan review, when applicable.

B. Permit Fee for New Buildings, Additions, Tenant Improvements, Residential Remodels, and Combined Mechanical, Electrical, and/or Plumbing Permits
Determination of Valuation for Fee-Setting Purposes
Appendix C: p. 5

Page 396 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom

BUILDING FEES
Fee Charge Basis Note CPI
1 Building Plan Check Fees - Building
a) Plan Review Fee, if applicable 80% [a] N
b) Expedited Plan Check - At Application Submittal (when applicable)

1.5x standard plan check fee N
c) Tract Home / Master Plan Construction (Production Units) 20% of standard plan check fee [b] N d) Production Permit for Multi-family permit $1,472 Y
e) Production Permit for Fire permits and other misc. permits $460 Y f) Alternate Materials and Methods Review (per hour) $184 Y g) Excess Plan Review Fee (4th and subsequent) (per hour) $184 Y h) Revisions to an Approved Permit (per hour) $184 Y
i) Deferred Submittal (per hour) $184 Y
D. Building Plan Review Fees
Activity Description
When applicable, plan check fees shall be paid at the time of application for a building permit.

The plan checking fee is in addition to the building permit fee [a] Includes up to three plan checks. The City will bill hourly for additional plan review required. [b] For identical buildings built by the same builder on the same lot or in the same tract and for which building permits are issued at the same time.

Appendix C: p. 6

Page 397 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom

BUILDING FEES
Fee Note CPI
1 Permit Processing Fee $77 Y
2 Strong Motion Instrumentation (SMI) Fee Calculation [a] a) Residential $0.50 or valuation x .00013 [a] N
b) Commercial $0.50 or valuation x .00028 [a] N
3 Building Standards (SB 1473) Fee Calculation (Valuation) [a] a) $1 - $25,000 $1 [a] N
b) $25,001 - $50,000 $2 [a] N
c) $50,001 - $75,000 $3 [a] N
d) $75,001 - $100,000 $4 [a] N
e) Each Add'l $25,000 or fraction thereof Add $1 [a] N
4 Business License Fee $25 N
5 CASP Training Fund Fee $3.60 N
6 State Disability Access Fee $0.40 N
7 General Plan/Zoning Code Update Fee (percent of building permit fee) 5% [b] N 8 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (Phasing Plan) Fee $920 Y 9 Permit Extension $0 Y
10 Permit Reactivation Fee
a) Reactivation Fee if All Inspections Have Been Performed and Approved Up to But Not Including Final Inspection
$184 Y
b) Reactivation Fee - All Other Scenarios
i) Permit Expired Up to One Year 50% of Original Base Building Permit Fee N ii) Permit Expired More than One Year 100% of Original Base Building Permit Fee N 11 Permit Reissuance Fee $184 Y
12 Damaged Building Survey (Fire, Flood, Vehicle Damage, Etc.) (per hour) $184 Y Other Fees
13 Phased Inspection Fee (per inspection) $184 Y
14 After Hours Inspection (per hour) (4-hour minimum) $221 Y 15 Re-inspection Fee (2nd Time or More) (each) $184 [c] Y 16 Missed Inspection Fee $184 Y
17 Duplicate Copy of Permit $77 Y
E. Other Fees
Activity Description
Appendix C: p. 7

Page 398 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom

BUILDING FEES
Fee Note CPI
E. Other Fees
Activity Description
18 Duplicate Copy of Certificate of Occupancy $77 Y
19 Fees for Services Not Listed in this Fee Schedule (per 1/2 hour) $92 Y Violation Fees
20 Investigation Fee For Work Done Without Permits
(In addition to applicable permit fees)
equal to
permit fee
N
[b] Fee applies to new construction, additions, tenant improvements, and residential remodels requiring building permits. [c] Reinspection fee applies after the first re-inspection. [a] Amounts established by State of California. In the case of discrepancy between this schedule and amounts established by the State, State amounts shall supersede these amounts.

Appendix C: p. 8

Page 399 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom

BUILDING FEES
Group (2021 International Building Code) IA IB IIA IIB IIIA IIIB IV VA VB A-1 Assembly, theaters, with stage 335.89 324.58 316.94 304.93 286.87 278.00 295.62 266.02 257.55 A-1 Assembly, theaters, without stage 307.39 296.08 288.44 276.42 258.37 249.50 267.12 237.51 229.05 A-2 Assembly, nightclubs 269.94 261.93 254.48 245.85 230.56 223.99 237.02 209.57 202.79 A-2 Assembly, restaurants, bars, banquet halls 268.94 260.93 252.48 244.85 228.56 222.99 236.02 207.57 201.79 A-3 Assembly, churches 311.88 300.57 292.93 280.91 263.30 254.43 271.60 242.45 233.98 A-3 Assembly, general, community halls, libraries, museums 266.07 254.76 246.12 235.10 216.33 208.46 225.80 195.47 188.01 A-4 Assembly, arenas 306.39 295.08 286.44 275.42 256.37 248.50 266.12 235.51 228.05 B Business 260.69 251.13 241.86 231.65 210.99 202.73 222.56 186.21 177.81 E Educational 273.46 263.96 255.62 245.04 228.69 217.00 236.61 200.36 193.94 F-1 Factory and industrial, moderate hazard 160.20 152.78 143.34 138.64 123.55 117.41 132.48 102.44 95.93 F-2 Factory and industrial, low hazard 159.20 151.78 143.34 137.64 123.55 116.41 131.48 102.44 94.93 H-1 High Hazard, explosives 149.46 142.04 133.60 127.90 114.12 106.97 121.74 93.00 0.00 H234 High Hazard 149.46 142.04 133.60 127.90 114.12 106.97 121.74 93.00 85.50 H-5 HPM 260.69 251.13 241.86 231.65 210.99 202.73 222.56 186.21 177.81 I-1 Institutional, supervised environment 262.22 252.95 244.31 235.67 215.42 209.47 235.71 193.82 187.73 I-2 Institutional, hospitals 434.15 424.59 415.32 405.12 383.35 0.00 396.02 358.57 0.00 I-2 Institutional, nursing homes 302.01 292.45 283.18 272.97 253.83 0.00 263.88 229.05 0.00 I-3 Institutional, restrained 295.86 286.31 277.03 266.83 247.95 238.69 257.74 223.17 212.77 I-4 Institutional, day care facilities 262.22 252.95 244.31 235.67 215.42 209.47 235.71 193.82 187.73 M Mercantile 201.37 193.36 184.91 177.28 161.72 156.15 168.45 140.73 134.95 R-1 Residential, hotels 264.67 255.41 246.77 238.13 218.35 212.40 238.17 196.75 190.67 R-2 Residential, multiple family 221.32 212.06 203.42 194.78 175.96 170.01 194.82 154.36 148.28 R-3 Residential, one- and two-family 209.61 203.74 198.94 195.12 188.41 181.45 191.77 175.86 165.67 R-4 Residential, care/assisted living facilities 262.22 252.95 244.31 235.67 215.42 209.47 235.71 193.82 187.73 S-1 Storage, moderate hazard 148.46 141.04 131.60 126.90 112.12 105.97 120.74 91.00 84.50 S-2 Storage, low hazard 147.46 140.04 131.60 125.90 112.12 104.97 119.74 91.00 83.50 U Utility, miscellaneous 114.09 107.37 99.89 95.60 85.13 79.54 90.99 67.39 64.19 Building Valuation Data Table
Appendix C: p. 9

Page 400 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

Attachment 4

Page 401 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Engineering and Encroachment Permit Fees
Cost of Service Calculation
Fee Description
Est. Labor
Hours Hourly Rate
Est. Cost of
Svc Current Fee
Current Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed
Cost
Recovery Fee Structure Fee Change Note
1 Assessment District/CFD Payment Processing 24.00 x $2 00 = $4,800 $4,800 100% $4,800 100% Fixed Fee $0 [c] 2 Encroachment Permit [c]
a) Encroachment Contract for Parking/Staging
i. 0-6 calendar days 0.25 x $200 = $50 $50 100% $50 100% Fix ed Fee $0 ii. 7-14 calendar days 0.50 x $200 = $100 $100 100% $100 10 0% Fixed Fee $0 iii. 14+days 1.00 x $200 = $200 $200 100% $200 100% Fixed Fe e $0 b) Utility Work/Connections (Individual Permits)
i. Wet Utilities/Service Connections
a. Base Fee 3.00 x $200 = $600 $600 100% $600 100% Fixed Fee $0 b. Plus per LF of Trench in ROW/City Easement 0.03 x $200 = $5.00 $5.00 100% $5.00 100% Fixed Fee $0.00 ii. Dry Utilities (per site/location)
a. Base Fee 1.00 x $200 = $200 $200 100% $200 100% Fixed Fee $0 b. Plus per LF of Trench in ROW/City Easement 0.03 x $200 = $5.00 $5.00 100% $5.00 100% Fixed Fee $0.00 iii. Misc. per LF of Trench in ROW/City Easement 0. 03 x $200 = $5.00 $5.00 100% $5.00 100% Fixed Fee $0.00 iv. Inspections and Testing (when applicable) 2.00 x $200 = $400 $400 100% Fixed Fee c) Driveways/Minor Frontage Improvements
i. Residential (per driveway) 2.00 x $200 = $400 $400 100 % $400 100% Fixed Fee $0 ii. Commercial (per driveway) 2.00 x $200 = $400 $400 100 % $400 100% Fixed Fee $0 d) Pools and Spas (in ground) 2.00 x $200 = $400 $400 100 % $400 100% Fixed Fee $0 e) Traffic Control/Equipment Staging
i. Isolated Site 1.00 x $200 = $200 $200 100% $200 100% Fixe d Fee $0 ii. Multiple Closures/Staging 5.00 x $200 = $1,000 $1,00 0 100% $1,000 100% Fixed Fee $0 f) Permit Extensions
i. Active Work Zone 0.25 x $200 = $50 $50 100% $50 100% Fixe d Fee $0 ii. Inactive Work Zone (4+ months inactivity) 1.00 x $200 = $200 $200 100% $200 100% Fixed Fee $0 g) Annual Permits
i. Wet Utilities 30.00 x $200 = $6,000 $6,000 100% $6,000 1 00% Fixed Fee $0 ii. Dry Utilities 104.00 x $200 = $20,800 $20,800 100% $2 0,800 100% Fixed Fee $0 iii. General Maintenance/Misc. (Not Wet or Dry
Utilities)

30.00 x $200 = $6,000 T&M T&M
T&M [a]
iv. Vegetation Management (Utilities) 104.00 x $200 = $ 20,800 $20,900 100% $20,800 100% Fixed Fee ($100) v. Long Term/Revocable Encroachments (paid
annually)

1.00 x $200 = $200 $200 100% $200 100% Fixed Fee $0
h) Long Term/Revocable Encroachments (new permits
only)

12.00 x $200 = $2,400 $2,400 100% $2,400 100% Fixed Fee $0 [b]

Page 402 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

City of Folsom
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Engineering and Encroachment Permit Fees
Cost of Service Calculation
Fee Description
Est. Labor
Hours Hourly Rate
Est. Cost of
Svc Current Fee
Current Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
Proposed
Cost
Recovery Fee Structure Fee Change Note
3 Engineering and Landscape Plan Check and Inspectio n
(Fee Includes Up to 3 Cycle Reviews - Hourly Billing Applies for Reviews Required Beyond 3rd Cycle)
a) Project Value Up to $10,000 4.00 x $200 = $800 8.00% va ries 8.00% varies Fixed Fee b) Project Value $10,001 - $100,000
i. Base Fee for First $10,000 4.00 x $200 = $800 $800 100% $800 100% Fixed Fee $0 ii. Fee for Each Add'l $1 Up to $100,000 8.00% 8.00% 1 00% 8.00% 100% Fixed Fee c) $100,001 - $199,999
i. Base Fee for First $100,000 40.00 x $200 = $8,000 $8,0 00 100% $8,000 100% Fixed Fee $0 ii. Fee for Each Add'l $1 Up to $200,000 6.40% 6.40% 1 00% 6.40% 100% Fixed Fee d) $200,001 - $299,999
i. Base Fee for First $200,000 72.00 x $200 = $14,400 $14 ,400 100% $14,400 100% Fixed Fee $0 ii. Fee for Each Add'l $1 Up to $300,000 4.80% 4.80% 1 00% 4.80% 100% Fixed Fee e) $300,000 or more
i. Base Fee for First $300,000 96.00 x $200 = $19,200 $19 ,200 100% $19,200 100% Fixed Fee $0 ii. Fee for Each Add'l $1 3.60% 3.60% 100% 3.60% 100% Fix ed Fee f) Miscellaneous Landscape Plan Review
i. Non-Development Landscape Plan Review 1.00 x $200 = $200 $200 100% $200 100% Per Hour $0 ii. New Custom Home 5.50 x $200 = $1,100 $1,100 100% $1,100 100% Fixed Fee $0 iii. Production Home/Subdivision (Typ. Tract Home)
a. 0-4 Planting Schemes/Master Plans 11.50 x $2 00 $2,300 $2,300 100% $2,300 100% Fixed Fee $0 b. 5+ Planting Schemes/Master Plans 12.50 x $2 00 $2,500 $2,300 Varies $2,500 + 10% per Scheme above 5
Schemes
$100% Fixed Fee Varies
iv. Model Home Complex 7.00 x $200 = $1,400 Valuation varies n/a v. Commercial, Streetscape, Other Development
Projects

8.00 x $200 = $1,600 $38 2% n/a
vi. Development and Civil Improvements - Landscaping
Review

10.50 x $200 = $2,100 $38 2% n/a
4 Final Map and Parcel Map [c]
a) Parcel Map Check 28.00 x $288 = $8,050 $8,050 100% $8,05 0 100% Fixed Fee $0 b) Final Map Check
i. Base Fee/Final Map Amendment 40.00 x $288 = $11,500 $1 1,500 100% $11,500 100% Fixed Fee $0 ii. Plus, Per Lot Fee 0.50 x $288 = $144 $144 100% $144 100% Fixed Fee ($0) c) Certificate of Correction/Certificate of Complia nce (including Parcel Mergers)

8.50 x $288 = $2,444 $2,000 varies $2,000 100% T & M with Initial Deposit
$0
d) Lot Line Adjustment Check 28.00 x $288 = $8,050 $4,811 60% $8,050 100% Fixed Fee $3,239 5 Right of Ways (ROW) and Easements [c]
a) Review of ROW/Easement Documents 12.00 x $288 = $3,45 0 $3,450 100% $3,450 100% Fixed Fee $0 b) ROW/Easement Abandonment 20.00 x $288 = $5,750 $5,750 1 00% $5,750 100% Fixed Fee $0 6 Agreement Processing 20.00 x $288 = $5,750 $5,750 100% $5 ,750 100% Fixed Fee $0 [c]

Page 403 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

0.50 x $200 = $100 $100 100% $100 100% Fixed Fee $0
ii. New Construction (e.g. Custom Home, Subdivision,
Parcel Map, Multi-family, Commercial, etc.):
a. 0-4 Trees 6.00 x $200 = $1,200 $1,200 100% $1,200 100% Fi xed Fee $0 b. 5+ Trees 7.00 x $200 = $1,400 $1,400 + 10% per
tree above 5 trees.
$1,400 + 10% per
tree above 5 trees.

Fixed Fee $0
iii. Misc. 1.00 x $200 = $200 $200 100% $200 100% Per Hour $ 0 c) w/o Permit (Does not include sanctions or mitigation) Double the Permit Rate

12.00 x $200 = $2,400 2x permit amount 2x permit amount va ries Fixed Fee $0 Other Fees for Service [c]
9 Research of Engineering Records 1.00 x $200 = $200 $200 1 00% $200 100% Per Hour $0 10 Miscellaneous Engineering Services 1.00 x $200 = $200 $ 200 100% $200 100% Per Hour $0 11 Excess Plan Review Fee (4th and subsequent) 1.00 x $ 200 = $200 $200 100% $200 100% Per Hour 12 Revisions 1.00 x $200 = $200 $200 100% $200 100% Per Hour 13 After Hours Inspection (per hour) (2-hour minimum ) 1.20 x $200 = $240 $240 100% $240 100% Per Hour $0 14 Re-inspection Fee (2nd Time or More) (each)

1.00 x $200 = $200 $100 50% $200 100% Each
15 Missed Inspection Fee 1.00 x $200 = $200 $100 50% $200 100% Each 16 Expedited Services Fee 1.5x Regular Fee 1.5x Regula r Fee Fixed Fee 17 Residential Landscape Review 1.00 x $200 = $200 Hourly Rate of Arborist
Hourly Rate of
Arborist
Per Hour
18 Technical Assistance/Third Party Review or Inspec tion Actual Cost Actual Cost T & M [a] Use time and materials with initial deposit to be determined by City Engineer, based on anticipated scope of work. [b] Encroachment agreement required in addition to insurance (e.g., parklets). [c] Fee is subject to annual updates based on changes to the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

Page 404 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

Attachment 5

Page 405 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

From: Elaine Andersen
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 11:07 AM
To: Steven Wang; Pam Johns; Desmond Parrington; Rebecca Neves; Josh Kinkade Subject: FW: Folsom City Council: Appeals fee increase

FYI…

From: Paul Keast < [email protected] >
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2024 10:44 AM
To: Mike Kozlowski < [email protected] >; YK Chalamcherla < [email protected] >; Rosario Rodriguez < [email protected] >; Sarah Aquino < [email protected] >; Anna Rohrbough <[email protected] >
Cc: Elaine Andersen < [email protected] >
Subject: Folsom City Council: Appeals fee increase

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

March 15, 2024

Mayor and City Council Members

City Manager

City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630

Subject: City Council Appeal Cost Increase

Dear Mayor, Council Members and City Manager:

I am sending this letter to ask that you not raise the Appeal Fees any higher than they are at currently.

(For those that do not know I have used the appeal process in the past)

I believe the appeal process is an important right that must be available to residents of the City at a reasonable cost. With that, below are a few thoughts about not raising the cost.

Page 406 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.
• Raising the cost of appeals will only reinforce the beliefs that elected and City staff are not interested in hearing from residents. Are appeals just another pain of leadership or a significant message to consider from an appellant? • If the cost is made high enough then residents have another barrier that is so high that Staff can feel their recommendations are now even more secure • The current cost of $500.00 is a significant cost to pay to start the process (I know this as I had to pay it)
• Making the decision to appeal and the work to go through is not trivial, so raising the cost is even more of a burden
• Over the last 5 years there have been 10 appeals, from the City’s data.

Averaging 2 per year, that does not seem to be a huge or unreasonable burden to hear as a Council (especially in comparison to the cost in time, effort, and cost for the appellant)

A couple of solutions to consider:
• Given the reason to raise the cost is staff time for the appeal. I suggest that there be no City staff prep and the Council use the packet and information from the original decision.
• The City employed a consultant in the fee examination process. In the Council meeting he proposed that fees that have “high community benefit” have low cost. Appeals are a direct process of communication about significant issues.

That seems to be a good definition of “high community benefit”

Regards,

Paul Keast

Page 407 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

This page is intentionally left blank
to facilitate double-sided printing
and minimize paper use.

Page 408 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.14.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

4/22/2025
AGENDA SECTION:

New Business
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 1349- An Ordinance of the City of Folsom Amending Subsection E(4) and adding Subsection (E)(7) to Section 17.52.510 of the Folsom Municipal Code Pertaining to Minor Illuminated Open Signs in the Historic District Sutter Street Subarea (Introduction and First Reading)
FROM: Community Development Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 1349- An Ordinance of the City of Folsom Amending Subsection E(4) and adding Subsection (E)(7) to Section 17.52.510 of the Folsom Municipal Code Pertaining to Minor Illuminated Open Signs in the Historic District Sutter Street Subarea.

BACKGROUND / ISSUE
The proposed Ordinance is to modify the sign regulations for the Sutter Street Subarea of the Historic District within Section 17.52.510 of the Folsom Municipal Code in order to allow for the use of minor illuminated “ open” signs , including specifically internally illuminated and neon “open” signs, within certain design standards.

The Folsom Municipal Code amendment is based on concerns brought by the Sutter Street Merchants Association regarding the visibility of businesses in the evening hours within the Sutter Street Subarea of the Historic District . Currently, internal illumination and neon are prohibited forms of illumination for all signage in the Sutter Street Subarea. During code enforcement efforts after the end of the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (PHE) , it was discovered that several businesses in the Sutter Street Subarea had put up neon and internally illuminated (e.g., LED, etc.) “open” signs in order to clearly identify that they were open, particularly for businesses which were open in the evenings. Staff presented a workshop to the Historic District Commission regarding this issue on June 5, 2024 , during which several business owners recommended that certain types of illuminated “open” signs be allowed in order to provide greater visibility for businesses. At the direction by the Commission, staff prepared a draft Ordinance which would allow for the use of minor illuminated open signs, which is the subject of this report.

Page 409 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.
2 The proposed Ordinance was considered by the Historic District Commission at its March 12, 2025 hearing. At this hearing, Judy Collingsworth of the Folsom Historic District Association spoke in support of the ordinance. However, instead of limiting the colors to red or orange as staff had proposed, Ms. Collingsworth, speaking on behalf of the merchants of Sutter Street, voiced a preference for limiting the illumination color to white only. Comment letters have also been submitted by the Heritage Preservation League, who recommended the continued prohibition on neon and recommended the allowance of alternative forms of internal illumination that use warm tones; and by Bob Delp, Historic District resident, who recommended that the City enforce the existing prohibition of neon and internal illuminated signage for the noncompliant “open” signs.

The Commission expressed support for the Ordinance, with a n amendment to limit the color of illumination to white instead of the red and orange colors as originally proposed by staff. The Planning Commission adopted a motion (5-0-1-1: 5 votes in support, 0 opposed, 1 recusal, and 1 member absent) to recommend approval of the proposed Ordinance to the City Council, subject to the findings included with the report.

POLICY / RULE
Under Section 2.12 of the City Charter, amendments to the Folsom Municipal Code require review and approval by the City Council.

ANALYSIS
Under the current sign regulations for the Sutter Street Subarea, “open” signs are limited t o externally and nonilluminated signage due to the prohibition of the use of neon and internal illumination for all signage , as outlined in FMC 17.52.510(E)(4). After research around the potential for externally illuminated “open” sign options, staff found that these types of “open” signs are not common or readily available on the market compared to other illuminated “open” sign options, and business owners on Sutter Street have claimed that nonilluminated “open” signs are not easily visible in the evening hours which makes it difficult for customers to clearly identify which businesses are opened or closed.

Additionally, of the historic districts in our region that were evaluated by staff , most either explicitly allowed or did not prohibit the use of neon or internally illuminated signage. Notably, Nevada City’s district prohibited internally illuminated signs, including neon, but others, such as Auburn and Woodland, explicitly allow for neon signs. Sacramento and Grass Valley also allow for the use of internally illuminated signage in their historic district standards. Of the illuminated “open” signs allowed in these districts, staff concluded that a controlled approach for the Sutter street Subarea would help both address the needs of businesses for visibility while maintaining the district’s historic character.

Staff has provided proposed modifications to FMC Section 17.52.510 to add a provision to allow businesses in the Sutter Street Subarea the use of one “open” sign of a size no greater than 1.5 square-feet, that may be nonilluminated, externally illuminated, or internally illuminated. A clean version of the proposed ordinance is provided in Attachment 1, and a redlined version showing the edits is provided in Attachment 2. The types of internal illumination are further limited to face-lit, neon-tube, or similar type of illumination . Animated signs and multi -bulb signs would be prohibited alongside any information that would advertise the business, such as trade names, logos, or symbols. Illumination is proposed to be limited to only white colors.

Page 410 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.
3 This proposal aims to improve visibility for businesses during evening hours without compromising the historic character of the Sutter Street Subarea . The allowance for internal illumination, including neon, would grant businesses greater visibility in the evenings, while the limitation on the number of signs, the size, and the prohibition on advertisement would ensure that the use of these “open” sign s will be as small minor signs, not the main visual draw for the storefront of a business. The size limitation to 1.5 square -feet will also be able to accommodate most readily available “open” sign sizes on the market . The prohibition on animated and multi - bulb signs will also ensure that no modern-appearing signs, such as multi-bulb LED signs, would be used.

Originally staff had recommended that the illumination colors be limited to red and orange, as this was the first colors available for neon signage in the early 1900s and is considered more historically compatible with the Historic District. Additionally, the use of red and orange would effectively limit the brightness, and thus the visual impact, of the signs on the historic street façade. However, a letter from the Folsom Historic District Association recommended that only white illumination be allowed, which was reiterated by their representative at the March 12 th Historic District Commission hearing, and at the direction of the Commission staff have modified the color to white illumination only. The limitation to a singular color is intended to prevent the use of modern red and blue neon “open” signs (developed in the 1980s) which are not considered historically accurate to the Sutter Street Subarea.

Overall, the proposed draft ordinance intends to balance the goal to preserve the historic character of the Sutter Street Subarea with the needs of businesses for enhanced evening visibility through allowing the use of small, minor illuminated “open” signs.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
The changes to Section 17.52.510 of the FMC is not anticipated to impact the General Fund.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The change to this chapter of the Folsom Municipal Code is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is therefore exempt from environmental review in accordance with Section 15061(b)(3). Additionally, the addition of small ill uminated open signs at Sutter Street businesses would be categorically exempt under Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines as it is a minor alteration that involves no expansion of the use.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Ordinance No. 1349 – An Ordinance of the City of Folsom Amending Subsection E(4) and adding Subsection (E)(7) to Section 17.52.510 of the Folsom Municipal Code Pertaining to Minor Illuminated Open Signs in the Historic District Sutter Street Subarea

2. Proposed Ordinance amendment in redline version

3. Historic District Commission Staff Report and Attachments, dated March 12, 2025

4. Public Comment Letter, dated March 11, 2025

5. Minutes from March 12, 2025 Historic District Commission Meeting (Draft)

Page 411 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.
4 Submitted,

____________________________

PAM JOHNS
Community Development Director

Page 412 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Attachment 1

Page 413 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Ordinance No. 1349

Page 1 of 3 ends

ORDINANCE NO. 1349

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM AMENDING SUBSECTION E(4) AND ADDING SUBSECTION (E)(7) TO SECTION 17.52.510 OF THE FOLSOM MUNICIPAL

CODE PERTAINING TO MINOR ILLUMINATED OPEN SIGNS IN THE HISTORIC

DISTRICT SUTTER STREET SUBAREA

The City Council of the City of Folsom does hereby ordain as follows:

SECTION 1 PURPOSE

The purpose of this ordinance is to amend the Folsom Municipal Code to allow for the use of certain internally illuminated open signs in the Sutter Street Subarea of the Historic District.

SECTION 2 AMENDMENT TO CODE

Subsection (E)(4) of Section 17.52.510 of the Folsom Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

17.52.510 Sutter Street Subarea Special Use and Design Standards

E. Signs

4. In addition to those signs prohibited in Chapter 17.59, the following signs are prohibited in this subarea, except as expressly provided in this section:
a. Neon;
b. Internally illuminated;
c. Backlit canopies; and
d. Corporate flags.

SECTION 3 ADDITION TO CODE

Subsection (E)(7) is hereby added to Section 17.52.510 of the Folsom Municipal Code to read as follows:

17.52.511 Sutter Street Subarea Special Use and Design Standards

E. Signs

7. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, each business is permitted to have one “Open” sign, subject to the following standards:
a. Size is no greater than 1.5 square feet.
b. Located indoors, placed on a window or door.
c. Does not include logos, symbols, or trade names, and shall bear only information indicating if and when the business is open.

Page 414 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Ordinance No. 1349

Page 2 of 3 ends

d. Nonilluminated, externally illuminated, or internally illuminated “Open” signs are allowed.
e. If internally illuminated, illumination is limited to face-lit, neon-tube, and similar types of illumination.
f. If illumination is used, colors for external and internal illumination shall be limited to white.
g. The use of multiple bulbs to create letters or shapes are prohibited.
h. Animated signs are prohibited.

SECTION 4 SCOPE

Except as set forth in this ordinance, all other provisions of the Folsom Municipal Code shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 5 SEVERABILITY

If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase in this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council declares that it would have passed each section irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase be declared unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective.

SECTION 6 EFFECTIVE DATE

This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its passage and adoption, provided it is published in full or in summary within twenty (20) days after its adoption in a newspaper of general circulation in the City.

This ordinance was introduced and the title thereof read at the regular meeting of the City Council on April 22, 2025 and the second reading occurred at the regular meeting of the City Council on May 13, 2025.

On a motion by Councilmember seconded by Councilmember , the foregoing ordinance was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Folsom, State of California, this 13th day of May, 2025, by the following roll-call vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s):

NOES: Councilmember(s):

ABSENT: Councilmember(s):

ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):

Page 415 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Ordinance No. 1349

Page 3 of 3 ends

__________________________________
Sarah Aquino, MAYOR

ATTEST:

______________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK

Page 416 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Attachment 2

Page 417 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Ordinance No. 1349

Page 1 of 3 ends

ORDINANCE NO. 1349

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM AMENDING SUBSECTION E(4) AND ADDING SUBSECTION (E)(7) TO SECTION 17.52.510 OF THE FOLSOM MUNICIPAL

CODE PERTAINING TO MINOR ILLUMINATED OPEN SIGNS IN THE HISTORIC

DISTRICT SUTTER STREET SUBAREA

The City Council of the City of Folsom does hereby ordain as follows:

SECTION 1 PURPOSE

The purpose of this ordinance is to amend the Folsom Municipal Code to allow for the use of certain internally illuminated open signs in the Sutter Street Subarea of the Historic District.

SECTION 2 AMENDMENT TO CODE

Subsection (E)(4) of Section 17.52.510 of the Folsom Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

17.52.510 Sutter Street Subarea Special Use and Design Standards

E. Signs

SECTION 3 ADDITION TO CODE

Subsection (E)(7) is hereby added to Section 17.52.510 of the Folsom Municipal Code to read as follows:

17.52.511 Sutter Street Subarea Special Use and Design Standards

E. Signs

Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: Font: Bold

Page 418 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Ordinance No. 1349

Page 2 of 3 ends

c. Does not include logos, symbols, or trade names, and shall bear only information indicating if and when the business is open.
d. Nonilluminated, externally illuminated, or internally illuminated “Open” signs are allowed.
e. If internally illuminated, illumination is limited to face-lit, neon-tube, and similar types of illumination.
f. If illumination is used, colors for external and internal illumination shall be limited to white.
g. The use of multiple bulbs to create letters or shapes are prohibited.
h. Animated signs are prohibited.

SECTION 4 SCOPE

Except as set forth in this ordinance, all other provisions of the Folsom Municipal Code shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 5 SEVERABILITY

SECTION 6 EFFECTIVE DATE

On a motion by Councilmember seconded by Councilmember , the foregoing ordinance was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Folsom, State of California, this 13
th day of May, 2025, by the following roll-call vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s):

NOES: Councilmember(s):

ABSENT: Councilmember(s):

ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):

Formatted: Numbered + Level: 3 + Numbering Style:
a, b, c, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Right + Aligned at:

2.13" + Indent at: 2.25"

Page 419 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Ordinance No. 1349

Page 3 of 3 ends

__________________________________
Sarah Aquino, MAYOR

ATTEST:

______________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK

Page 420 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Attachment 3

Page 421 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

AGENDA ITEM NO. 3
Type: Public Hearing
Date: March 12, 2025

City of Folsom Page 1
Historic District Commission Staff Report
50 Natoma Street, Council Chambers
Folsom, CA 95630

Project: Zoning Code Amendment to Allow Internally Illuminated Open Signs in the Sutter Street Subarea
File #: ZCAM25-00032
Request: Recommend City Council approval of Zoning Code Amendment Location: Sutter Street Subarea of Historic District
Parcel(s): N/A
Staff Contact: Nathan Stroud, Assistant Planner, (916) 461-6220 [email protected]

Project Summary
The proposed zoning code amendment would allow for the use of small internally illuminated open signs in the Sutter Street Subarea of the Historic District, subject to certain design regulations, in order to address concerns by Sutter Street businesses discussed during the Historic District Commission workshop on June 5, 2024. These concerns included the lack of easily identifiable signage which would indicate whether a business was open or closed during the evening hours due to the prohibition on internal illumination. Staff have prepared a draft ordinance to allow for internally illuminated open signs, subject to certain design standards, at the request of the Historic District Commission.

Background
Folsom Municipal Code Section 17.52.510(E)(4) states that internally illuminated signage, including specifically neon signage, is not allowed in the Sutter Street Subarea within the Historic Commercial Primary Area of the Historic District. FMC 17.59.030(C) (applicable throughout the City) states that incidental signs, such as open/closed signs, and window signs that do not cover more than 25 percent of the window, are exempt from sign permit requirements; however, staff have traditionally not allowed these signs to be internally illuminated in the Sutter Street Subarea due to the prohibition on internal illumination.

In order to support local business during the COVID -19 Public Health Emergency (PHE), the City relaxed its enforcement activities on businesses for minor issues such as sign violations. After the end of the PHE, and as a result of complaints received regarding the appearance of several internally illuminated “Open” signs for businesses on Sutter Street, Code Enforcement sent the Folsom Historic District Association (FHDA) a fact sheet on sign requirements in the Historic District, which was distributed to all businesses within the subarea in early August 2023. At that time, staff asked FHDA to remind business owners

Page 422 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

AGENDA ITEM NO. 3
Type: Public Hearing
Date: March 12, 2025

City of Folsom Page 2
that internally illuminated signs, as well as unpermitted temporary banner signs were not allowed on Sutter Street and that City enforcement would begin shortly.

Code Enforcement and Planning staff also met with the Sutter Street Merchants’ Association on August 24, 2023, to educate business owners about the sign regulations.

Staff explained the regulations to the merchants but received many concerns about the prohibition on minor internally illuminated “Open” signs. Coming out of the COVID -19 PHE, many of the merchants felt that the internally illuminated open signs were important for their businesses to let the public know that they were now open again. This wa s especially the case for businesses located within buildings where their storefront was not directly facing the street. The merchants generally felt that the City was telling them what they could not do instead of supporting them as they tried to recover from the economic impact of the PHE.

On June 5, 2024, Planning staff presented a workshop to the Historic District Commission (HDC) to discuss the proliferation of the use of internally illuminated open signs in the Sutter Street Subarea since the COVID-19 PHE. As noted previously, internally illuminated signs are a prohibited sign type under Folsom Municipal Code Section 17.52.510(E)(4).

During the HDC workshop, several Sutter Street business owners reiterated concerns regarding the prohibition of minor internally illuminated “Open” signs, an d recommended that these types of minor signs be allowed, to support their businesses by clearly identifying which stores are open to customers , especially in the evening hours . These issues are discussed further in the analysis section of this report. The Commission requested that staff return with alternative internally illuminated open sign styles which may be acceptable in the Sutter Street Subarea of the Historic District in consideration of the concerns by local Sutter Street businesses.

On July 24, 2024, the FHDA submitted a letter to staff stating that if internally illuminated open signs are determined to be allowed in the Sutter Street Subarea, the association recommended that the allowed signage be limited to only solid white internal illumination, that blinking lights or colorful illumination not be allowed, and that the size be limited to no greater than 12” x 18” (1.5 square foot). The Historic Preservation League (HPL) submitted two letters in February and e arly March in opposition to the use of neon -type open signs and in support of more historic multi-bulb marquee signs.

Policy/Rule
Under FMC Section 17.52.120, amendments to FMC Chapter 17.52 require review by the Historic District Commission and a recommendation to the City Council. Under Section

Page 423 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

AGENDA ITEM NO. 3
Type: Public Hearing
Date: March 12, 2025

City of Folsom Page 3

2.12 of the City Charter, amendments to the FMC require review and approval by the City Council.

Environmental Review
Under Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, this project is categorically exempt from CEQA since this involves a change to the sign standards of Chapter 17.52 of the Folsom Municipal Code . Regardless, the addition of small illuminated open sign s at Sutter Street businesses would be categorically exempt under Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines as it is a minor alteration that involves no expansion of the use.

Recommendation
Staff respectfully requests that the Commission recommend City Council approval of the draft ordinance, provided in Attachment 7, to allow for the use of small, internally illuminated open signs in the Sutter Street Subarea of the Historic District , subject to specific design standards, based on the findings (Findings A-H) below.

Table of Contents
1 – Description/Analysis
2 – Internally Illuminated Open Signs in the Sutter Street Subarea 3 – Internally Illuminated Open Signs in other Historic Districts 4 – Historic Folsom Residents Association Recommendations 5 – Heritage Preservation League Letter
6 – Draft Sutter Street Subarea Open Sign Guide
7 – Draft Redlined Ordinance
8 – Clean Ordinance

Submitted,

____________________________

PAM JOHNS
Community Development Director

Page 424 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Historic District Commission
Amendment to Allow Internally Illuminated Open Signs in the Sutter Street Subarea (ZCAM25-00032) March 12, 2025

ATTACHMENT 1

DESCRIPTION/ANALYSIS
Unique Circumstances of Sutter Street Businesses
As discussed during June 5, 2024, Historic District Commission workshop on internally illuminated open signs, business owners expressed concerns with the lack of visibility of their businesses , particularly in the evening hour s. According to the business owners present, they noted the following challenges associated with not having illuminated open signs:

1. The lack of illumination for open signs in the evening hours makes it difficult for customers to identify which businesses are open or closed.

2. The inconsistency between the closing hours of businesses reduces the foot traffic for multi -tenant buildings, creating a need to better identify which businesses remain open.

3. The visibility issue in the evening is exacerbated for businesses which are located in interior courts in multi -tenant buildings, who have little to no frontage along Sutter street itself.

Given these circumstances, the Historic District Commission provided direction to staff to prepare a solution in order to address the concerns of businesses within the Sutter Street Subarea. As such, s taff has proposed an ordinance which will allow for internally illuminated open signs of a certain size, type, illumination color, and design to be allowed for use for commercial uses in the Sutter Street Subarea. Staff believe that the ordinance as proposed would help support the businesses within the distric t in the evening hours while limiting the effect of internally illuminated signage on the historic character of the Sutter Street Subarea due to the restrictions on size, type of illumination, and colors.

Sign Illumination Standards of other Historic Districts Staff also notes that the prohibition on internally illuminated open signs is unique to the Sutter Street Subarea of the Historic District. Aside from Nevada City’s Historic District which prohibits internally illuminated signs, including neon, the Historic Districts of Auburn and Woodland explicitly allow for neon signs. Sacramento and Grass Valley also allow for internally illuminated signage in their historic district standards, and businesses within these historic districts have been found to use neon o pen signs. Several examples of internally illuminated open signs from each of these districts as well as others are provided in Attachment 3.

Addition to FMC 17.52.510(E) - Sutter Street Subarea Special Use and Design Standards; Signs
The intent of the amendment is to both address the concerns of Sutter Street business owners with evening visibility, while also ensuring that the amendment will not cause a detrimental effect to the historic character of the Historic District. If approved, the proposed amendment would allow each business in the subarea to use one open sign of a size no greater than 1.5 square feet , to be located in a window or door which may be nonilluminated, externally illuminated, or internally illuminated, subject to c ertain standards.

Page 425 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Historic District Commission
Amendment to Allow Internally Illuminated Open Signs in the Sutter Street Subarea (ZCAM25-00032) March 12, 2025

After review of the types of readily available internally illuminated open signs on the market, staff determined that most illuminated open signs were of a size ranging between 1 square foot and 1.5 square f eet; thus, staff believe that a maximum size of 1.5 square feet was appropriate to allow for flexibility of choice for businesses when choosing an illuminated open sign. Additionally, this size would prohibit the use of excessively large signage which could detract from the historic character of the Sutter Street Subarea.

Furthermore, the proposed amendment would allow for both externally illuminated and internally illuminated open signs in addition to non -illuminated open signs. However, the provided illumination is restricted to red or orange colors in order to limit brightness and encourage historical consistency. Furthermore, multi-bulb signs would be prohibited due to the prevalence of modern LED multi-bulb signs on the market that would detract from the historic character of the subarea . Internal illumination is further limited to specifically neon and face-lit signage, and Neon-imitation signs which utilize LED tubes, which are more readily able on the market, will also be allowed under the ordinance . Allowing for illumination would address the concerns discussed in the previous section.

Neon as a type of sign illumination has been in use since the 1910s, with its use peaking during the 1930s and 1940s. Its colors were fairly limited to red -orange until the 19 20s and 1930s when new technology allowed for the use of more diverse and vibrant colors.

Since the peak use of neon is within the time period prescribed for the Historic District (1850 – 1950), staff is supportive of the use of neon as an option for open signs, limite d to red and orange colors in order to be more consistent with the early 1900s to increase compatibility with the character of Sutter Street. Additionally, the use of red and orange colors also effectively limits the brightness of the signs, allowing for visibility in the evening hours without compromising the historic feel and appearance of Sutter Street. Examples of red neon signs in other historic districts are shown in Attachment 3, and an example is shown in Figure 1 below. Figure 2 below also shows a multicolored neon sign which would be prohibited by the draft ordinance as proposed.

Figure 1 - Red Neon Open Sign
(Grass Valley)

Figure 2 - Multi-Colored Neon Open Sign
(Placerville)

Page 426 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Historic District Commission
Amendment to Allow Internally Illuminated Open Signs in the Sutter Street Subarea (ZCAM25-00032) March 12, 2025

Face-lit open signs were also included in the approved types of open sign illumination since this form of illumination is readily available on the market and can provide a n alternative to neon tube illumination. The limitation of the illumination red or orange color will also effectively limit the brightness of such signs and thus limit the impact on the historic character of the Sutter Street Subarea. Examples of an appropriate face-lit open sign are shown in Attachment 6 and in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3 - Appropriate Face-Lit Open Sign

Multi-bulb open signs which use multiple bulbs to create letters are proposed to be prohibited in the proposed zoning code amendment since the vast majority of readily available multi-bulb open signs on the market are modern LED multi -bulb signs with a modern appearance. Some examples of these signs are shown in Attachment 2 in Figure 4 below. Additionally, animated signs are also explicitly prohibited, as this would create a more modern effect that would detract from the historic character of the Sutter Street Subarea.

Figure 4 – Prohibited Modern Multi-Bulb Open Sign

Overall, the amendment will allow businesses on Sutter Street to identify whether their business is open or not. This change to the ordinance will allow for the use of open signs which are small, and which may use historically compatible types of illumination used during the 1850 – 1950 timeframe . Furthermore, staff is recommending limiting the illumination to red and orange colors since those colors are more historically compatible for the time period compared to other colors, and would limit the brightness of the open signs thus further preserving the historic character of the Sutter Street Subarea.

Examples of illuminated open signs which would be allowed or prohibited under the draft ordinance are shown in Attachment 6. This open sign guide may be modified and expanded by staff in the future consistent so long as those signs are consistent with the amended ordinance, and will serve as a reference for Sutter Street businesses.

Public Feedback
As noted earlier, staff received a letter from the Folsom Historic District Association (FHDA), provided in Attachment 4, in support of small internally illuminated open signs using white illumination. While staff initially considered allowing only white illuminated

Page 427 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Historic District Commission
Amendment to Allow Internally Illuminated Open Signs in the Sutter Street Subarea (ZCAM25-00032) March 12, 2025

signs, further research showed that the first neon signs of the 1910s were limited to red and orange colors, with other colors being developed later in the 1920s and 1930s. Since the Sutter Street Subarea is intended to preserve the existing pre-1900s design concept, with some allowances for post -1900 design, staff believed that adhering to the earliest neon colors would be more compatible with the historic character of the subarea .

Additionally, as noted in the previous sections, the use of red and orange colors also limits the brightness of the sign used, which will help preserve the visual impact of the neon signs during the day while providing increased visibility during the evenings for businesses.

Staff had also received two letters from the Historic Preservation League (HPL), provided in Attachment 5, in opposition to the use of neon signs and recommended that staff prepare a package of sign standards for all signage in the Sutter Street Subarea rather than amending the code for just one type of signage. HPL preferred the use of wooden or metal marquee signs with naked light bulbs , and supported the use of internally illuminated signage so long as the signs utilized warm tones for illumination.

While staff acknowledges that marquee signs are associated with early illuminated signage for the early 1900s, these signs typically were used for the main sign of a commercial space, and not often used for small and minor signs, like open signs.

Additionally, neon signs were more commonly used in the Sutter Street Subarea compared to marquee signs based on historical imagery from the 19 20s-1950s.

Practically speaking for business owners, historically appropriate marquee open signs are difficult to find, and most multi-bulb signs that are readily available are modern multi- bulb LED signs. Regarding the use of warm tones for internal illumination, staff believe that the restriction of illumination colors to red or orange colors is consistent with this recommendation for internally illuminated signage.

With regard to preparing a comprehensive update to signage for the Sutter Street Subarea, staff would like to do that, but staff does not have the resources to do that currently. Ideally, that would be done as part of the comprehensive update to FMC Chapter 17.52.

General Plan Goals and Policies
With regards to the City’s General Plan which guides the physical, economic, and environmental growth of the City, the proposed project is consistent with the following General Plan goal and policies:

Goal LU 2.1
Develop and support thriving urban centers that serve as community gathering places.

GP Policy LU 2.1.1 (Historic Folsom)
Maintain the existing street fabric and pattern and enhance the tourist -oriented, historic commercial uses in the Historic Folsom commercial areas to preserve the unique character of Folsom’s historic center and support local business.

The proposed project is consistent with this policy in that it wil l balance the preservation of the historic character of the Historic District with the needs of local businesses for

Page 428 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Historic District Commission
Amendment to Allow Internally Illuminated Open Signs in the Sutter Street Subarea (ZCAM25-00032) March 12, 2025

visibility in the evening hours through the use of sign illumination that imitates that used in the early 1900s.

Recommendation / Historic District Commission Action
Move to recommend City Council approval of the draft ordinance, provided in Attachment 7, to allow for the use of internally illuminated open signs in the Sutter Street Subarea of the Historic District, subject to specific design standards, based on the findings (Findings A-H) below.

GENERAL FINDINGS
A. NOTICE OF HEARING HAS BEEN GIVEN AT THE TIME AND IN THE MANNER REQUIRED BY STATE LAW AND CITY CODE.

B. THE ORDINANCE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY.

C. THE ORDINANCE SUPPORTS LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND LOCAL BUSINESSES IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT IN PARTICULAR.

CEQA FINDINGS
D. THE ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER SECTION 15061(B)(3) SINCE THE AMENDMENT OF THE ZONING CODE IS AN

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION THAT DOES NOT RESULT IN A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT.

E. FURTHERMORE, ALLOWING SMALL ILLUMINATED OPEN SIGNS IS

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15301(EXISTING FACILITIES) AS ALLOWING THIS

TYPE OF SMALL SIGN INSTALLATION IS A MINOR ALTERATION OF A PRIVATE STRUCTURE AND INVOLVES NO EXPANSION OF THE USE.

F. THERE ARE NO UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT EXIST TO DISTINGUISH

THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT FROM OTHER EXEMPT
ACTIONS.

G. THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT IS NOT SIGNIFICANT IN THIS CASE.

H. THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WILL NOT CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE CHANGE IN THE SIGNIFICANCE OF A HISTORICAL RESOURCE.

Page 429 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Page 430 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Page 431 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Page 432 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Page 433 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Page 434 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Page 435 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Page 436 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Page 437 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Page 438 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Page 439 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Page 440 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Page 441 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Page 442 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Page 443 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Page 444 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Page 445 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Page 446 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Page 447 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Page 448 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Page 449 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Page 450 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Page 451 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Page 452 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Page 453 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Page 454 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Page 455 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Page 456 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Page 457 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Page 458 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Page 459 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Page 460 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Page 461 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Page 462 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.
1 Nathan Stroud
From: Judy Collinsworth <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2024 7:58 PM
To: Nathan Stroud
Subject: Re: Neon Signs
Attachments: possible alternatives.docx
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Nathan,

D came in first and then E.

The board also liked the idea of simply saying: Your OPEN sign must be static - white only and then give dimensions that are acceptable. We would be very happy with any of these options.

Judy Collinsworth
Executive Director
Folsom Historic District Association
PO Box 515
200 Wool St
Folsom, CA 95630
916-985-7452
Use the SeeClickFix App and report any problems in our City.

Report a Problem | Folsom, CA
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 11:12 AM Nathan Stroud <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Judy,

I’m working with Desmond regarding the neon open sign concerns in the Historic District, and wanted to reach out to ask you if you still had the survey results mentioned in the letter? Specifically, I wanted to see all eight sign options that you mentioned, and what the top two options were that received support? Please let me know. Thank you!

Page 463 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

A. $80.00

B. $39 (19 x 8)

C. $140

D. $169 #1

E. $84. #2

F . $85

Page 464 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Page 465 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

HERITAGE PRESERVATION LEAGUE OF FOLSOM

DISCUSSION POINTS REGARDING DRAFT SIGN ORDINANCE

February 25, 2025

ORDINANCE: Permitting the use of internally illuminated ’Open’ signs in the Sutter Street Subarea.

STAFF REPORT: Staff will present the Ordinance to City Council for approval.

SCHEDULE: Notification provided by City planning staff on February 18, 2025.

Presentation to Historic District Commission scheduled for March 12th.

City Council hearing date to be determined.

SIGNS IN THE SUTTER STREET SUBAREA
General Comment
Sign requirements for the Sutter Street Subarea are specified in the Municipal Code (17.52.510) and further described in the Design & Development Guidelines for the Historic District (Chapter 4 and 5). However, many existing signs do not meet the existing design criteria. The proposed new Ordinance is only addressing ‘Open’ signs.

Existing Standards
Open signs are normally interior window signs. When these signs are smaller than one square- foot, they are exempt from design review. However, the general restriction against internally illuminated signs and neon signs applies to all signs in the Subarea. In the past, it has been generally accepted that these limitations were necessary to preserve Historic Folsom’s image of a small foothill town from the early days of California. It is HPL’s opinion that it is important to maintain this restriction.

Marquee Signs
Marquee signs of wood or metal were in use during the early part of the 1900’s, before canned or neon signs were available. Because the sign letters on marquee signs are illuminated by small naked bulbs, the overall impression is compatible with signs from the late 1900’s. HPL suggests that staff should consider an Ordinance that will permit the use of marquee-type open signs, in-lieu of the proposed internally illuminated signs. These signs should be located inside windows and not along the exterior of the shops.

Page 466 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

HPL’S SIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Continue to prohibit all internally illuminated and neon signs in the Sutter Street Subarea.

2. Consider permitting smaller, interior, marquee-type ‘open’ signs in the Sutter Street Subarea.

In addition, HPL believes that it would be beneficial if staff could prepare a complete sign- package for the Sutter Street Subarea, rather than processing one type of sign individually.

Marquee Sign #1

Marquee Sign #2

Page 467 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

HERITAGE PRESERVATION LEAGUE OF FOLSOM

DISCUSSION POINTS REGARDING DRAFT SIGN ORDINANCE
RESPONSE TO STAFF’S FEEDBACK 02.28.25

February 30, 2025

ORDINANCE: Permitting the use of internally illuminated and exposed neon ’Open’ signs in the Sutter Street Subarea.

STAFF REPORT: Staff will present the Ordinance to City Council for approval.

SUBJECT: City planning staff has clarified that the draft sign ordinance will include exposed neon ‘Open’ signs (in addition to internally illuminated ‘Open’ signs)

SCHEDULE: Presentation to the Historic District Commission has been scheduled for March 12th.

SIGNS IN THE SUTTER STREET SUBAREA
General Comment
The Design & Development Guidelines specifies that signs in the Sutter Street Subarea should be …’directed primarily towards pedestrian, not vehicular traffic’… [see DDG’s 5.02.01(d)(3)].

This guideline is consistent with the prohibition of bright signs, intended to be visible from a distance (including neon, internally illuminated and ‘day-glo’ signs).

Neon Signs
The early history of neon started in Paris, France (Paris Auto Show in 1910). However, in the early 1900’s electricity was still a novelty in the Sacramento Area and neon light was not an option. Exposed neon coils of any color will therefore clash with the Design Criteria for the Sutter Street Subarea.

Marquee Signs
Before canned or neon signs were available, marquee signs provided a greater visual impact.

Because these signs are illuminated by small, uncovered light bulbs, they could be considered compatible with externally illuminated signs. However, it is HPL’s opinion that marquee signs would not be appropriate along exterior facades.

Page 468 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Internally Illuminated Signs
The first internally illuminated signs were wood boxes with small internal light bulbs. The sign copy was painted on a translucent sheet of glass. This type of sign could also be considered compatible with externally illuminated signs, provided that the light source has a warm tone.

HPL’S SIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Continue to prohibit the use of neon in the Sutter Street Subarea.

2. Consider permitting the following ‘open’ signs for interior use:
a) small marquee signs with exposed light bulbs and a warm tone of light’, b) small box signs with internal light bulbs and a warm tone of light.

Because the Zoning Code Update will not be completed for some time, the ordinance may also need to address letter fonts, the size of ‘open’ signs and the overall limit of window coverage.

Internal Illumination #1

Page 469 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Internal Illumination #2

Marquee Sign #1

Page 470 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Marquee Sign #2

Page 471 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Page 472 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT | 50 NATOMA STREET, FOLSOM, CA 95630 | WWW.FOLSOM.CA.US

CITY OF FOLSOM
FOLSOM, CA – INCORPORATED 1946 Page | 1 Rev. 2-9-24
Historic District Guide:

Approved Illuminated “Open” Signs
Illuminated “Open” Signs
One “Open” sign of a size less than 1.5 square feet is allowed per business in the Sutter Street Subarea, and will count towards the overall 25% window coverage maximum requirement. No Sign Permit is required for “Open” signs.

Nonilluminated and Externally Illuminated “Open” signs are the preferred option in the Historic District.

Illumination for “Open” signs is limited to red and orange hues, including for neon-tube, face-lit, and externally illuminated “Open” signs. “Open” Signs with simple designs are encouraged.

Signs which utilize multiple bulbs to create letters or shapes are prohibited in the Sutter Street Subarea.

Appropriate Neon “Open” Signs
Inappropriate

No Restrictions on Orientation

Red or Orange Hues Allowed for Illumination

No Restrictions on Front

Minor Decorative Elements and Words Allowed

Page 473 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT | 50 NATOMA STREET, FOLSOM, CA 95630 | WWW.FOLSOM.CA.US

CITY OF FOLSOM
FOLSOM, CA – INCORPORATED 1946 Page | 2 Rev. 2-9-24
Illuminated Open Signs
One “Open” sign of a size less than 1.5 square feet is allowed per business in the Sutter Street Subarea, and will count towards the overall 25% window coverage maximum requirement. No Sign Permit is required for “Open” signs.

Nonilluminated and Externally Illuminated “Open” signs are the preferred option in the Historic District.

Illumination for “Open” signs is limited to red and orange hues, including for neon-tube, face-lit, and externally illuminated “Open” signs. “Open” Signs with simple designs are encouraged.

Signs which utilize multiple bulbs to create letters or shapes are prohibited in the Sutter Street Subarea.

Appropriate Face-Lit “Open” Signs

Red or Orange Hues Allowed for Illumination

Page 474 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT | 50 NATOMA STREET, FOLSOM, CA 95630 | WWW.FOLSOM.CA.US

CITY OF FOLSOM
FOLSOM, CA – INCORPORATED 1946 Page | 3 Rev. 2-9-24
Illuminated Open Signs
One “Open” sign of a size less than 1.5 square feet is allowed per business in the Sutter Street Subarea, and will count towards the overall 25% window coverage maximum requirement. No Sign Permit is required for “Open” signs.

Nonilluminated and Externally Illuminated “Open” signs are the preferred option in the Historic District.

Illumination for “Open” signs is limited to red and orange hues, including for neon-tube, face-lit, and externally illuminated “Open” signs. “Open” Signs with simple designs are encouraged.

Signs which utilize multiple bulbs to create letters or shapes are prohibited in the Sutter Street Subarea.

Inappropriate Illuminated “Open” Signs
Inappropriate

Colors other than Red or Orange Hues are
Prohibited

Elements which Advertise Business, Products,
Services are Prohibited

Open Signs which use multiple bulbs to create
letters or shapes are Prohibited

Animated Open Signs Are Prohibited

Page 475 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Page 476 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Ordinance No. 0000

Page 1 of 3 ends

ORDINANCE NO. 0000

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM AMENDING SECTION 17.52.510(E) OF

THE FOLSOM MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW FOR THE USE OF INTERNALLY

ILLUMINATED OPEN SIGNS IN THE SUTTER STREET SUBAREA OF THE

HISTORIC DISTRICT

The City Council of the City of Folsom does hereby ordain as follows:

SECTION 1 PURPOSE

The purpose of this ordinance is to amend the Folsom Municipal Code to allow for the use of certain internally illuminated open signs in the Sutter Street Subarea of the Historic District.

SECTION 2 AMENDMENT TO CODE

Section 17.52.510(E) of the Folsom Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

17.52.510 Sutter Street Subarea Special Use and Design Standards

E. Signs

1. Each business whose entry door is located in the building frontage is permitted 1 wall or window sign. A business whose entry is located within an internal mall or corridor may utilize a nameplate incorporated in a wall sign for the entire building. The length of a wall sign may not exceed 75 percent of the shop’s frontage. The total of all window signage may not cover more than 25 percent of the window. Wall signs shall be designed and installed with minimal space between the planes of the wall and of the sign. Businesses with frontage on more than one street and/or public parking lot may place a wall or window sign on each frontage, with subsequent signs to be no larger than half the size specified for the first sign and subject to the other requirements of the first sign.

2. Signs are permitted to be hung under a canopy, but shall not exceed 3 square feet in size with a minimum of 8 feet clearance from the sidewalk in addition to any permitted wall or window signs. Businesses without a canopy may utilize a projecting sign of the same size and clearance for this purpose. The historic district commission may approve an increase in the size of the under-canopy or projecting sign in exchange for a reduction in size of the wall or window sign.

3. Signs exempt in Chapter 17.59 are exempt in this subarea except as follows:

Page 477 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Ordinance No. 0000

Page 2 of 3 ends

a. On-site directional signs are not exempt unless 2 square feet or smaller and, if freestanding, no higher than 2 feet, including base; b. Exempt real-estate signs do not require a setback from public right- of-way; and
c. Window or door signs 1 square foot in size or larger and under- canopy signs are not exempt. Window or door signs smaller than 1 square foot are exempt but subject to the overall requirement regarding window coverage.

5. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, each business is permitted to have one “Open” sign, subject to the following standards:
a. Size is no greater than 1.5 square feet.
b. Located indoors, placed on a window or door.
c. Does not include logos, symbols, or trade names, and shall bear only information indicating if and when the business is open or closed.
d. Nonilluminated, externally illuminated, or internally illuminated “Open” signs are allowed.
e. If internally illuminated, illumination is limited to face-lit, neon-tube, and similar types of illumination.
f. If illumination is used, colors for external and internal illumination shall be limited to red or orange colors.
g. The use of multiple bulbs to create letters or shapes are prohibited.
h. Animated signs are prohibited.

5.6. Freestanding signs are not permitted, unless the historic district commission determines that the exclusive use of wall signage at a particular location is ineffective. The historic district commission may require a reduction in the amount of wall signage otherwise allowed to compensate for the use of a freestanding sign.

6.7. Buildings with multiple tenants shall be required to submit a uniform signage program (USP) for historic district commission approval.

After a USP is approved, tenant sign permits shall be reviewed and approved by the planning, inspections and permitting director.

Page 478 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Ordinance No. 0000

Page 3 of 3 ends

SECTION 3 SCOPE

Except as set forth in this ordinance, all other provisions of the Folsom Municipal Code shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 4 SEVERABILITY

SECTION 5 EFFECTIVE DATE

This ordinance was introduced and the title thereof read at the regular meeting of the City Council on xxx xx, 2025 and the second reading occurred at the regular meeting of the City Council on xxxx xx, 2025.

On a motion by Councilmember seconded by Councilmember , the foregoing ordinance was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Folsom, State of California, this XX day of XXXX, 2025, by the following roll-call vote:

AYES: Councilmember(s):

NOES: Councilmember(s):

ABSENT: Councilmember(s):

ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):

__________________________________
Sarah Aquino, MAYOR

ATTEST:

______________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK

Page 479 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Page 480 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Ordinance No. 0000

Page 1 of 3 ends

ORDINANCE NO. 0000

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM AMENDING SECTION 17.52.510(E) OF

THE FOLSOM MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW FOR THE USE OF INTERNALLY

ILLUMINATED OPEN SIGNS IN THE SUTTER STREET SUBAREA OF THE

HISTORIC DISTRICT

The City Council of the City of Folsom does hereby ordain as follows:

SECTION 1 PURPOSE

The purpose of this ordinance is to amend the Folsom Municipal Code to allow for the use of certain internally illuminated open signs in the Sutter Street Subarea of the Historic District.

SECTION 2 AMENDMENT TO CODE

Section 17.52.510(E) of the Folsom Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

17.52.510 Sutter Street Subarea Special Use and Design Standards

E. Signs

3. Signs exempt in Chapter 17.59 are exempt in this subarea except as follows:

Page 481 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Ordinance No. 0000

Page 2 of 3 ends

5. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, each business is permitted to have one “Open” sign, subject to the following standards:
a. Size is no greater than 1.5 square feet.
b. Located indoors, placed on a window or door.
c. Does not include logos, symbols, or trade names, and shall bear only information indicating if and when the business is open or closed.
d. Nonilluminated, externally illuminated, or internally illuminated “Open” signs are allowed.
e. If internally illuminated, illumination is limited to face-lit, neon- tube, and similar types of illumination.
f. If illumination is used, colors for external and internal illumination shall be limited to red or orange colors.
g. The use of multiple bulbs to create letters or shapes are prohibited. h. Animated signs are prohibited.

6. Freestanding signs are not permitted, unless the historic district commission determines that the exclusive use of wall signage at a particular location is ineffective. The historic district commission may require a reduction in the amount of wall signage otherwise allowed to compensate for the use of a freestanding sign.

7. Buildings with multiple tenants shall be required to submit a uniform signage program (USP) for historic district commission approval. After a USP is approved, tenant sign permits shall be reviewed and approved by the planning, inspections and permitting director.

Page 482 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Ordinance No. 0000

Page 3 of 3 ends

SECTION 3 SCOPE

Except as set forth in this ordinance, all other provisions of the Folsom Municipal Code shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 4 SEVERABILITY

SECTION 5 EFFECTIVE DATE

AYES: Councilmember(s):

NOES: Councilmember(s):

ABSENT: Councilmember(s):

ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):

__________________________________
Sarah Aquino, MAYOR

ATTEST:

______________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK

Page 483 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Attachment 4

Page 484 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

March 11, 2025

Page 1 ends

City of Folsom Historic District Commission
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
via email to: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] SUBJECT: Comments to HDC for March 12, 2025, Meeting Agenda Item 3 - Zoning Code Amendment to Allow Internally Illuminated Open Signs in the Sutter Street Subarea Dear Historic District Commissioners:

As I expressed in my June 4, 2024, email to the Historic District Commission (HDC) omitted from your current staff report, I am writing to express my support for business signage in the Historic District that complies with existing Folsom Municipal Code (FMC) provisions that prohibit, among other sign types, neon and internally illuminated signage, and to express my support for enforcement of the existing prohibitions consistently for all Historic District businesses. Staff’s recommendation to allow red and orange lighted “open” signs will degrade the Sutter Street subarea’s historic character and create a downward spiral where additional businesses may also feel the need to use such signage.

If a change is to be made to the FMC regarding internally lit signage, then I request that the change be consistent with that recommended by the Folsom Historic District Association (FHDA) in July 2024 that only solid white internal illumination be allowed and that blinking lights or colorful illumination be prohibited.

It is unclear to me why the Community Development Department (CDD) has invested any staff resources into modifying the existing signage regulation instead of simply enforcing the existing regulations. It seems that a few businesses who do not want to comply with the existing ordinance have influenced CDD to spend staff time and resources on modifying the existing sign regulations in a manner that will degrade the character of the Historic District.

Neon, neon-like, or other internally lit “open” signs on Sutter Street conflict with the purpose and intent of Folsom’s Historic District zoning and in particular with FMC 17.52.010(B)(1) purpose “[t]o preserve and enhance the historic, small-town atmosphere of the historic district as it developed between the years 1850 and 1950.” Although the first neon signs were used in the U.S. in 1923, the use of neon “open” signs was not common until the mid-1980s (see attached Slate article). Red and orange lighted “open” signs in no way reflect the atmosphere of Folsom’s historic district as it developed between 1850 and 1950.

Allowing businesses on Sutter Street to use red and orange internally lit signs as proposed by staff will influence even more business to have such signs as a necessity to show they are also open (see attached Slate article, “because my competitor on the next block has a neon OPEN sign….they think I’m closed.” Instead, by creating a level playing field where no businesses are allowed to use such signs, business owners will have incentive to be creative with designing unique, period-appropriate signage. Several businesses along Sutter Street already do this and have unique, visually appealing “open” signs or other clear indications that their businesses are open.

Sutter Street is not a strip mall and it is not a thoroughfare along which a bright red “open” sign is needed to attract the attention of passing motorists. Instead, Sutter Street is a walkable area where pedestrians can easily assess whether or not a business is open without having a blaring red or orange “open” sign drawing attention away from the unique visual setting and historic character of Sutter Street buildings and businesses.

Page 485 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

March 11, 2025

Page 2 ends

On Monday evening (3/10/25), I photographed few of the existing lighted signs in the Sutter Street subarea. Presumably, these are some of the businesses that are also seeking a change to the sign regulations. However, all of the lighted signs I observed would also be in conflict with staff’s proposed modified regulations. Some examples, including the Eagles Lodge with a lighted sign visible from Scott Street, are below.

Eagles Lodge – A window-mounted lighted sign reading “open” with multiple blue bulbs creating individual letters, surrounded by multiple red bulbs creating a border, and an animated streaming line of text created by multiple red bulbs announcing hours and cornhole. This sign violates the existing regulation and would also violate the proposed modified regulation.

Moreover, Eagle’s Lodge is a private club and has multiple alternative ways to communicate its hours to members without a lighted sign in the window.

The Vine – A window-mounted lighted sign reading “open” with multiple red bulbs creating individual letters that blink on and off, surrounded by multiple blue bulbs creating a border. This sign violates the existing regulation and would also violate the proposed modified regulation.

The Vine also has a custom, attractive sandwich board sign on the street which provides a clear indication that The Vine is open, with no need for a lighted open sign in the window.

Pizzeria Classico – A window-mounted lighted sign with orange letters reading “open” encircled by a blue light, with seven red-lighted rows listing hours for each day of the week. This sign violates the existing regulation and would also violate the proposed modified regulation.

Page 486 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

March 11, 2025

Page 3 ends

Sutter Street Taqueria - A window-mounted lighted sign reading “open” with multiple red bulbs creating individual letters, surrounded by multiple blue bulbs creating an oval border (not lit in photo). This sign violates the existing regulation and would also violate the proposed modified regulation.

Terra Cottage Boutique – A window-mounted white neon sign reading “open”. This sign violates the existing regulation and would also violate the proposed modified regulation.

However, with its white light it is the least visual intrusive of the internally lighted signs noted here and would be consistent with the FHDA recommendation for white-only neon signs.

Contrasting the business signs above is a great example at Full Sol Market with an attractive sandwich sign on the sidewalk and a classic ribbon-hung chalkboard “open” sign in the window.

Passersby have no trouble determining that this business is OPEN. Many other businesses along Sutter Street have similarly attractive signage or other indications that the businesses are open without resorting to internally lit signs.

Page 487 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

March 11, 2025

Page 4 ends

I encourage the HDC to reject staff’s recommendation and encourage CDD staff to enforce the existing signage regulations on all business to create a level playing field that promotes and protects the unique character of the Sutter Street subarea.

Thank you for considering my comments.

Sincerely,

Bob Delp
Historic District Resident
Folsom, CA 95630
[email protected]
Attachment: Sign o’ the Times - The origins of the neon OPEN sign. - By Michael Dolan - Slate Magazine - March 05, 1998

Page 488 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Sign o’ the Times - The origins of the neon OPEN sign. - By Michael Dolan - Slate Magazine - March 05, 1998 Neon alters language, its gaseous glow elevating dull verbs (EAT), bland nouns (HOTEL), and vapid antonyms
(V ACANCY/NO V ACANCY). In red and blue neon, even a
flat announcement like OPEN acquires a cold yet undeniable fire.

But neon’s cool heat alone did not make the OPEN sign the visual loudspeaker of American small business. First, neon had to evolve from handicraft to commodity, from carefully considered decision to impulse purchase, from custom
manufacture to mass production. Only then could OPEN join the pay phone and public toilet as invisible icons that don’t appear until you look for them.

The sign’s ubiquity was a long time coming. Until a decade ago, a simple neon OPEN sign retailed for as much as $400.

That’s not cheap, but it’s far less expensive than the first neon sign sold in the United States, which blinked on in 1923 when a Los Angeles car dealer had a “Packard” sign made for
$1,200 (by comparison, the cheapest new Packard on the lot sold for $3,600).

Invented by a Frenchman, the neon sign quickly became an Americanism. “Neon in America meant progress, vitality, urban excitement. It symbolized American energy,” writes Rudi Stern in his 1988 book, The New Let There Be Neon. A neon sign in the window also advertised the fact that a merchant was flush enough to have spent some coin. But even after the neon patents expired in the ‘30s and the form boomed, signs stayed expensive. And thanks to their fragility and artisan nature, they also remained locally produced. In the medium’s heyday, the 1940s, the United States boasted more than 2,000 neon shops. Today, there are a mere several
hundred.

What changed the neon-sign business was the beer business.

In the course of a few postwar decades, outfits like Fallon Luminous Products and Everbrite learned how to manufacture durable, transportable neon signs for Coors, Miller, and the various Anheuser-Busch brands. Protective plastic housings, sturdier mounts, lighter transformers, and shock-resistant shipping boxes gave the signs greater mobility. Mass
production cut costs.

But aside from beer logos and a few other popular corporate insignias, neon was a tough mass-market sell, despite
competitors’ efforts to break new markets. It wasn’t until the mid-1980s that Fallon and Everbrite devised blue and red OPEN signs (it’s a matter of dispute who made the first one), but the way they sold them–door-to-door, mostly–kept prices high. A generic OPEN cost about what a local shop would charge for one made to order, and the market responded
accordingly. In a good year, Everbrite sold only about 500 signs.

Today Everbrite moves 15,000 OPENs a year, and Fallon is just as busy. The market blossomed in the late 1980s, with the rise of wholesale buyer’s clubs like Costco and SAM’S Club. “Their customers were mainly small businesses,” says Tim Fallon. “We showed a classic size sign to SAM’S. They tested it, and it hit.” Everbrite President Jeff Jacobs pitched Costco, which also saw OPEN signs fly out of the aisles. Now SAM’S Club sells Fallon’s signs for about $115; at Costco, Everbrite’s sell for $119.99.

Experienced production-line workers fashion an OPEN in
about 10 minutes. Despite their name, many signs contain gases other than neon. A few puffs of argon fill the blue border of an OPEN; neon itself powers the red portion of the
message. In the new generation of OPEN signs, the red is redder and the blue bluer because the glass tubing is coated with colored ink. If reheated, as they would have to be in the course of repair, the inks melt into brown goop, making the signs such a pain to fix that it’s easier to buy another than to take a broken model into the shop.

The classic OPEN sign is a 35-inch by 15-inch rectangle, with a dozen feet of 12-millimeter tube in the word OPEN and another 8 feet in the border. One reason the sign has achieved world domination is because the letters’ height-to-width ratio approximates the Golden Section–1-to-1.618–so beloved of artists, architects, and the ordinary human eye. Another is that the size fits most transoms, windows, and walls. Still another:

The shipping box stacks easily on a standard pallet.

Mavens can discern between makers at a glance. Fallon sets its OPEN in a molded plastic case, while Everbrite’s mounts on a metal armature. Everbrite markets the classic rectangle only, while Fallon offers a vertical OPEN, as well as an Art Deco bullet shape.

The OPEN sign’s popularity tracks that of the strip mall.

Immigrant shopkeepers and boomer entrepreneurs needed to let passers-by know they were ready for business. Fifty years ago they’d have scrawled OPEN on a shirt cardboard and
perched it to catch the eye of a passing pedestrian. But who window shops anymore, except at 35 mph, through a window set in the frame of a vehicle?
The lingua franca of commercial America has done what
Esperanto could not: achieve universality. In Vienna, a few neon signs do growl GEOFFNET. But more often the word is OPEN–evidence, says one neon connoisseur there, of
continental affection for Americana, along with a changing European culture. “In Austria, there used to be customs about when businesses could operate,” says Dusty Sprengnagel, who owns a shop called Neon Line and whose book on neon will reach store shelves later this year. “Most shops closed at 6 p.m. weekdays and on Saturday were not open or were open only until noon. We all knew the rules, so no one needed an OPEN sign. But things have changed. Shops may be open
later, they may be open all of Saturday. The OPEN sign is not pretty, but it provides the information you need.”
With OPEN going platinum, why not a neon CLOSED sign?
Everbrite tried one, but it tanked. An OPEN sign is a binary beast, it seemed–if a store owner turned it off, the message was implicit. You couldn’t say the same of a CLOSED sign–if it was off, would that mean proprietors lurking in the back waiting to make a sale?
An unlit OPEN has a fearsome power of its own. “We get calls from people whose signs aren’t working. They’re desperate,” Everbrite’s Jacobs says. “A guy told me, ‘I run a video store. I broke my sign washing my window. I’ve got to have another one right away, because my competitor on the next block has a neon OPEN sign. People can see that he’s open, but with my sign broken they think I’m closed.’ “

Page 489 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Attachment 5

Page 490 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Historic District Commission
March 12, 2025

Page 1 of 4 ends

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES

SPECIAL MEETING
February 12, 2025
6:30 p.m.
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, California 95630

CALL TO ORDER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION:

A regular meeting of the Historic District Commission was called to order at 6:30 p.m. with Chair Kathy Cole presiding.

ROLL CALL:

Commissioners Present: Mark Dascallos, Commissioner
Jennifer Cabrera, Vice Chair
Daniel West, Commissioner
Mathew Herrera, Commissioner
John Lane, Commissioner
Kathy Cole, Chair

Commissioners Absent: John Felts, Commissioner

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:

The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

CITIZEN COMMUNICATION:

NONE

MINUTES:

The AMENDED minutes of the December 4, 2024 were approved.

The minutes of the February 5, 2025, meeting will be presented for approval.

NEW BUSINESS:

1. DRCL25-00019: 1301 Fong St., Residential Residing Project and Determination that the Project is Exempt from CEQA

A public meeting to request Design Review approval for a residential residing project located at 1301 Fong Street.

The project site has a MLD (Multifamily Low Density) General Plan designation and is within the R -M (PD) (Two- Family Residential; Planned Dev elopment) Zoning District. The property is located in the Folsom Historic District

Page 491 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Historic District Commission
March 12, 2025

Page 2 of 4 ends

within The Preserve Subarea of the Historic Residential Primary Area. The project is categorically exempt under Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the California Environ mental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. (Project Planner: Nathan Stroud / Applicant: Monique Lytell)

COMMISSIONER LANE MOVED TO APPROVE AN APPLICATION (DRCL25-00019) FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A RESIDENTIAL RESIDING PROJECT FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 1301 FONG STREET, AS SHOWN IN ATTACHMENT 5 BASED ON THE FINDINGS (FINDINGS A-H) BELOW AND SUBJECT TO THE ATTACHED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (CONDITIONS 1 -10), WITH MODIFICATIONS / CHANGES TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

 AMENDMENT OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TITLE

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR 401 MORMON ST., CANOPY DEMOLITION AND REPLACEMENT PROJECT (DRCL24-00309) 1301 FONG ST., RESIDENTIAL RESIDING PROJECT (DRCL25-00019)

 AMENDMENT OF CONDITION NO. 1

THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT FINAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS TO TH E COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT THAT SHALL SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORM TO THE EXHIBITS REFERENCED BELOW, AS MODIFIED BY THESE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:

o PLAN SET (ATTACHMENT 5)

THIS PROJECT APPROVAL IS FOR THE 401 MORMON ST., CANOPY DEMOLITION AND REPLACEMENT PROJECT (DRCL24 -00309) WHICH INCLUDES THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING CANOPY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A 576 SQUARE-FOOT, 12 FOOT

TALL NEW CANOPY STRUCTURE OVER A PLAYGROUND FOR A CHILD DAYCARE LOCATED AT 401 MORMON STREET. 1301 FONG ST., RESIDENTIAL RESIDING PROJECT (DRCL25-00019) WHICH INCLUDES THE REPLACEMENT OF STUCCO SIDING WITH HORIZONTAL LAP SIDING FOR A SINGLE -FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 1301 FONG STREET.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE ABOVE - REFERENCED ITEMS AS MODIFIED BY THESE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

COMMISSIONER WEST SECONDED THE MOTION.

The Motion carried the following roll call vote:

AYES: DASCALLOS, CABRERA, WEST, HERRERA, LANE, COLE
NOES: NONE
RECUSED: NONE
ABSENT: FELTS

MOTION PASSED

2. USPT24-00300: The Gaslight Company Meeting and Event Space Project and Determination that the Project is Exempt from CEQA

A public hearing to request modification of an existing Conditional Use Permit for the Gaslight Company, located at 718 Sutter Street, Suite 200, for the expansion of the business into Suite 208 to accommodate a banquet room, and to increase the hours of operation. The Gaslight Company is an existing bar and restaurant that also hosts entertainment and private events. The project site has an HF (Historic Folsom Mixed Use) General Plan designation and is within the HD (Historic District) Zoning District. The property is located in the Folsom Historic District within the Sutter Street Subarea of the Historic Comme rcial Primary Area. The project is categorically exempt under Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. (Project Planner: Nathan Stroud / Applicant: Mark Dascallos)

1. Mr. Moe Hirani addressed the Commission in support of the project and the use of the space as a banquet hall.

COMMISSIONER WEST MOVED TO APPROVE AN APPLICATION FOR THE MODIFICATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE GASLIGHT COMPANY, LOCATED AT 718 SUTTER STREET, SUI TE

Page 492 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Historic District Commission
March 12, 2025

Page 3 of 4 ends

200, FOR EXPANSION OF THE BUSINESS AND TO INCREASE THE HOURS OF OPERATION, BASED ON THE

FINDINGS (FINDINGS A -G) BELOW AND SUBJECT TO THE ATTACHED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (CONDITIONS 1-27), WITH MODIFICATIONS / CHANGES TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

 AMENDMENT OF CONDITION NO. 6

THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SHALL BE DEEMED REVOKED WITHOUT FURTHER ACTION BY

THE PLANNING HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION IF THE OPERATION OF THE FACILITY IN THE

MANNER DESCRIBED IN THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CEASES FOR ANY CONSECUTIV E PERIOD OF SIX (6) MONTHS.

 AMENDMENT TO ATTACHMENT 4: EXISTING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (PN19-305)

STAFF WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT THE ORIGINAL APPROVED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (PN19-305) HAD INCORRECTLY STATED THAT THE HOURS OF OPERATION WERE 11 AM TO 1 AM ON THURSDAY AND SATURDAY; HOWEVER, STAFF HAD INTENDED TO STATE THAT THESE HOURS APPLIED FROM THURSDA Y THROUGH SATURDAY WHEN THE PN19 -305 PROJECT WAS APPROVED AT THAT TIME.

COMMISSIONER LANE SECONDED THE MOTION.

The Motion carried the following roll call vote:

AYES: CABRERA, WEST, HERRERA, LANE, COLE
NOES: NONE
RECUSED: DASCALLOS
ABSENT: FELTS

MOTION PASSED

3. ZCAM25-00032: Zoning Code Amendment to Allow Internally Illuminated Open Signs in the Sutter Street Subarea and Determination that the Project is Exempt from CEQA

A public hearing to consider a Zoning Code Amendment that will allow for the use of small internally illuminated open signs in the Sutter Street Subarea of the Historic District if the open signs meet certain design criteria. The project is categorically e xempt under Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. (Project Planner: Nathan Stroud)

1. Ms. Judy Collinsworth addressed the Commission in support of the project – with the exception of the use of orange and red colors. Ms. Collinsworth spoke on behalf of merchants in the Historic District, who voiced a preference for white neon only.

COMMISSIONER WEST MOVED TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT ORDINANCE, PROVIDED IN ATTACHMENT 7, WITH MODIFICATIONS / CHANGES TO STANDARD F BELOW, TO ALLOW

FOR THE USE OF INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED OPEN SIGNS IN THE SUTTER STREET SUBAREA OF THE

HISTORIC DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO SPECIFIC DESIGN STANDARDS, BASED ON THE FINDINGS (FINDINGS A-H) BELOW.

 AMENDMENT TO ATTACHMENT 7: DRAFT ORDINANCE

o SECTION 2 AMENDMENT TO CODE

SECTION 17.52.510(E) OF THE FOLSOM MUNICIPAL CODE IS HEREBY AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:

17.52.510 SUTTER STREET SUBAREA SPECIAL USE AND DESIGN STANDARDS

E. SIGNS

5. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER P ROVISION OF THIS SECTION, EACH BUSINESS IS PERMITTED TO HAVE ONE “OPEN” SIGN, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS:

Page 493 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Historic District Commission
March 12, 2025

Page 4 of 4 ends

A. SIZE IS NO GREATER THAN 1.5 SQUARE FEET.

B. LOCATED INDOORS, PLACED ON A WINDOW OR DOOR.

C. DOES NOT INCLUDE LOGOS, SYMBOLS, OR TRADE NAMES, AND SHALL BEAR

ONLY INFORMATION INDICATING IF AND WHEN THE BUSINESS IS OPEN OR CLOSED.

D. NONILLUMINATED, EXTERNALLY ILLUMINATED, OR INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED “OPEN” SIGNS ARE ALLOWED.

E. IF INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED, ILLUMINATION IS LIMITED TO FACE -LIT, NEON- TUBE, AND SIMILAR TYPES OF ILLUMINATION.

F. IF ILLUMINATION IS USED, COLORS FOR EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL ILLUMINATION SHALL BE LIMITED TO WHITE COLOR.

G. THE USE OF MULTIPLE BULBS TO CREATE LETTERS OR SHAPES ARE PROHIBITED.

H. ANIMATED SIGNS ARE PROHIBITED.

COMMISSIONER LANE SECONDED THE MOTION.

The Motion carried the following roll call vote:

AYES: CABRERA, WEST, HERRERA, LANE, COLE
NOES: NONE
RECUSED: DASCALLOS
ABSENT: FELTS

MOTION PASSED

PLANNING MANAGER REPORT:

Planning Manager Desmond Parrington reported that the next Historic District Commission meeting is tentatively scheduled for April 2, 2025.

Planning Manager Desmond Parrington provided an update on the following items:

 New City Manager, Mr. Bryan Whitemyer, was introduced to the Commission.  Since the last commission meeting, staff has handled two design reviews – one small ADU and one garage door replacement.

There being no further business to come before the Folsom Historic District Commission, Chair Kathy Cole adjourned the meeting at 8:05 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

Karen Sanabria, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT

APPROVED:

Kathy Cole, CHAIR

Page 494 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.15.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

4/22/2025
AGENDA SECTION:

New Business
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 1350 - An Uncodified Ordinance of the City of Folsom to Designate Fire Hazard Severity Zones in the Local Responsibility Area (LRA) – (Introduction and First Reading)

FROM: Fire Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION

Staff respectfully request that the City Council introduce and conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 1350 - An Uncodified Ordinance of the City of Folsom to Designate Fire Hazard Severity Zones in the Local Respons ibility Area (LRA) . The second readi ng and adoption of the ordinance will follow at the May 13, 2025, City of Folsom council meeting.

BACKGROUND / ISSUE
This agenda item involves adopting an ordinance to designate Fire Hazard Severity Zones within the Local Responsibility Area (LRA) and reference the City of Folsom LRA Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map, published on March 10, 2025.

Under state law, the State Fire Marshal is responsible for classifying lands within State Responsibility Areas (SRA) into Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Following the devastating 1991 Oakland Hills Fire, this requirement was expanded in 1992 to include Local Responsibility Areas, requiring the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) to assess fire hazard severity in these areas as well. In 2021, CAL FIRE was further directed to identify Moderate and High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, in addition to the previously designated Very High zones in Local Responsibility Areas. This update ensures that LRA maps, which previously only reflected very h igh hazard classifications, now also include moderate and high hazard zones.

The updated Fire Hazard Severity Zone s maps apply to all areas where fire protection is not the responsibility of state or federal agencies. A separate map for State Responsibili ty Areas

Page 495 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.16.
2 was updated and became effective in 2024. CAL FIRE developed the updated maps using a science-based, field-tested model that assigns hazard scores based on key factors influencing fire likelihood and behavior. The model considers fire history, e xisting and potential fuel sources such as natural vegetation, predicted flame length, blowing embers, terrain, and typical fire weather conditions.

The maps reflect fire hazard rather than fire risk. Similar to flood zone maps, these designations indicate the probability of fire occurring in a given area over a 30 to 50-year period, without considering mitigation efforts such as home hardening, recent wildfires, or fuel reduction programs.

Under California Government Code Section 51179(3), local agencies cannot reduce the fire hazard severity level assigned by the State Fire Marshal. However, they may increase the designation if they determine a higher hazard level is warranted. Local agencies do not have the authority to remove or lower designated fire hazard severity zones from the CAL FIRE maps. These state-mandated designations play a crucial role in land use planning, fire safety regulations, and emergency preparedness efforts for communities located in fire-prone areas.

POLICY / RULE

California Go vernment Code Section 51179(a) requires local agencies, including cities, counties, or districts responsible for fire protection within a moderate fire hazard severity zone, to designate by ordinance the moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity z ones within their jurisdiction. This designation must occur within 120 days of receiving recommendations from the State Fire Marshal pursuant to Section 51178. The City of Folsom received the Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zone s Map on Mar ch 10, 2025. As the agency responsible for fire protection within a moderate fire hazard severity zone, the City of Folsom is required to adopt this ordinance.

ANALYSIS
The proposed ordinance would designate Fire Hazard Severity Zones within the Local Responsibility Area (LRA) based on the updated LRA Fire Hazard Severity Zone s Map, published on March 10, 2025.

State law requires CAL FIRE to evaluate fire hazard severity in LRAs. In 2021, CAL FIRE expanded its classifications to include Moderate and High hazard zones in addition to Very High zones. The updated maps identify fire hazard levels in areas not covered by state or federal fire services.

Using a scientific model, CAL FIRE assessed fire probability and behavior by analyzing factors such as fire hi story, vegetation, terrain, and weather conditions. These maps reflect hazard, meaning the likelihood of fire occurring, rather than risk, which considers actual vulnerability and mitigation efforts.

Page 496 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.16.
3 Under California Government Code Section 51179(3), local agencies are not permitted to reduce designated hazard levels but may increase them if necessary.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

No fiscal impact except staff time to prepare the staff report/ordinance and to publish the ordinance.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

This action is not considered a project under Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, and as such is exempt from environmental review.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Ordinance No. 1350 - An Uncodified Ordinance of the City of Folsom to Designate Fire Hazard Severity Zones in the Local Responsibility Area (LRA)

2. City of Folsom Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map

Submitted,

Ken Cusano, Fire Chief

Page 497 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.16.

Attachment 1
Ordinance No. 1350 - An Uncodified Ordinance of the City of Folsom to Designate Fire Hazard Severity Zones in the Local Responsibility Area (LRA)

Page 498 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.16.

Ordinance No. 1350

Page 1 of 2 ends

ORDINANCE NO. 1350

AN UNCODIFIED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM TO DESIGNATE

FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES IN THE LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY AREA (LRA)

The City Council of the City of Folsom does hereby ordain as follows:

SECTION 1 PURPOSE

The purpose of this ordinance is to designate Fire Hazard Severity Zones within the Local Responsibility Area (LRA) and reference the City of Folsom LRA Fire Hazard Severity Zone s Map, published March 10, 2025, pursuant to Government Code Section 51178.

SECTION 2 FINDINGS

California Government Code Section 51179(a) requires local agencies, including cities, counties, or districts responsible for fire protection within a moderate fire hazard severity zone, to designate by ordinance the moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones within their jurisdiction. This designation must occur within 120 days of receiving recommendations from the State Fire Marshal pursuant to Section 51178. The City of Folsom received the Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zone s Map on March 10, 2025. As the agency responsible for fire protection within a moderate fire hazard severity zone, the City of Folsom is required to adopt this ordinance.

SECTION 3 SCOPE
The proposed ordinance would designate Fire H azard Severity Zones within the Local Responsibility Area (LRA) based on the updated LRA Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map, published on March 10, 2025.

Using a scientific model, CAL FIRE assessed fire probability and behavior by analyzing factors such as fire history, vegetation, terrain, and weather conditions. These maps reflect hazard, meaning the likelihood of fire occurring, rather than risk, which considers actual vulnerability and mitigation efforts.

Under California Government Code Section 51179(3), local agencies are not permitted to reduce designated hazard levels but may increase them if necessary.

Page 499 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.16.

Ordinance No. 1350

Page 2 of 2 ends

SECTION 4 SEVERABILITY

SECTION 5 EFFECTIVE DATE

This ordinance shall b ecome effective thirty (30) days from and after its passage and adoption, provided it is published in full or in summary within twenty (20) days after its adoption in a newspaper of general circulation in the City.

AYES: Councilmember(s):

NOES: Councilmember(s):

ABSENT: Councilmember(s):

ABSTAIN: Councilmember(s):

__________________________________
Sarah Aquino, MAYOR

ATTEST:

______________________________
Christa Freemantle, CITY CLERK

Page 500 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.16.

Attachment 2
City of Folsom Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map

Page 501 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.16.

City and County boundaries as of 10/22/24 (CA Board of Equalization) CAL FIRE State Responsibility Areas (SRA25_1)
CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZSRA23_3, FHSZLRA_25_1) Data Sources:

Daniel Berlant, State Fire Marshal, CA Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Joe Tyler, Director/Fire Chief, CA Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Wade Crowfoot, Secretary for Natural Resources, CA Natural Resources Agency Gavin Newsom, Governor, State of CaliforniaThe State of California and the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of data or maps. Neither the State nor the Department shall be liable under any circumstances for any direct, special, incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any claim by any user or third party on account of, or arising from, the use of data or maps. and other relevant factors including areas where winds
have been identified by the Office of the State Fire Marshal as a major cause of wildfire spread.
statewide criteria and based on the severity of fire hazard that is expected to prevail in those areas. Moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones shall be based on fuel loading, slope, fire weather, Government Code section 51178 requires the State Fire
Marshal to identify areas in the state as moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones based on consistent Waterbody
Federal Responsibility
Area (FRA)Unzoned LRA
Incorporated City
Projection: NAD 83 California Teale Albers
Scale: 1:52,000 at 11" x 17"
0 1 2 3 4Km
0 1 2Mi
Very High High Moderate
Very High High Moderate
Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) in Local Responsibility Area (LRA), as Identified by the State Fire Marshal
Folsom
50 UNINCORPORATED
EL DORADO CO.

UNINCORPORATED PLACER
CO.

UNINCORPORATED
SACRAMENTO CO.

RANCHOCORDOVA

ROSEVILLE
E L D O R A D O C O .S A C R A M E N T O C O .

P L A C E R C O .

S A C R A M E N T O C O . P L A C E R C O .

S A C R A M E N T O C O .

March 10, 2025
As Identified by the
State Fire Marshal
Local Responsibility Area
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
CITY OF FOLSOM – SACRAMENTO COUNTY
Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility
Area (SRA), Effective April 1, 2024

Page 502 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.16.

Folsom City Council
Staff Report

1 MEETING DATE:

4/22/2025
AGENDA SECTION:

New Business
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 1351 – An Ordinance of the City of Folsom Amending Sections 5.20.050(C) and 5.20.070(A)(2) of the Folsom Municipal Code to Increase the Number of Card Tables and Specify the Number of Cardrooms and Card Tables in the City (Introduction and First Reading)
FROM: Community Development Department

RECOMMENDATION / CITY COUNCIL ACTION

Staff recommends that the City Council introduce and conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 1351 - An Ordinance of the City of Folsom Amending Sections 5.20.050(C) and 5.20.070(A)(2) of the Folsom Municipal Code to Increase the Number of Card Tables and Specify the Number of Cardrooms and Card Tables in the City.

BACKGROUND / ISSUE

Legal gambling establishments, popularly referred to as cardrooms, have existed in California since the 1850s, and for most of that time, regulation of cardroom activities was left almost exclusively to local governments. The Folsom City Council formally began regulating cardrooms in 1988 with the approval of Ordinance No. 618, which enacted Chapter 5.20 Cardrooms of the Folsom Municipal Code.

Control of cardrooms began to shift to the State of California in 1995 when the Legislature enacted a 5-year moratorium that restricted the licensing of new cardrooms within the state. The original intent of the moratorium was to temporarily freeze the expansion of gambling in California while the State Legislature crafted what would eventually become the Gambling Control Act (Act) in 1997, legislation that requires the licensure and regulation of cardrooms on a statewide level.

Passage of the Act ultimately extended the moratorium on issuing any new cardroom licenses and expanded the definition of "expansion of gambling" to also include the number of tables in a local

Page 503 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.17.
2 jurisdiction. Under this definition, a local governmental body is prohibited from amending its Ordinance in a manner that would result in an increase of 25% or more (when compared to that authorized on January 1, 1996) in either the number of gambling tables in the jurisdiction or in the number of gambling tables operated in a cardroom in that jurisdiction.

In the 20 plus years since the Act's passage, the Legislature has enacted several exceptions to the moratorium that allow for a modest increase in the number of tables operated in a licensed gambling establishment (e.g., 2 -3 tables). The City of Folsom utilized two of these statutes to increase the number of tables that could be operated in a cardroom from six to nine in 2010 and nine to eleven in 2022. These table limits are codified in Folsom Municipal Code (FMC) Section

5.20.070(A)(2).

Folsom Municipal Code Chapter 5.20 – Cardrooms also includes provisions regarding the number of cardrooms permitted within the City. Specifically, FMC Section 5.20.050 (C) states that no cardroom license shall be granted when the number of cardroom licenses in the City exceeds the ratio of one cardroom for each two thousand five hundred persons in the City according to the last preceding federal census. The 2020 United States Census estimated the population of Folsom at 80,454 persons, thus a maximum of 32 cardrooms would be permitted if consistent with state law.

On February 7, 2025, the City received correspondence from the California Department of Justice, Bureau of Gambling Control (Bureau), notifying us that the current language of FMC Section

5.20.050(C) is inconsistent with the Act (Attachment 2 of this report) . Specifically, the Section must be amended to permit a specified number of card tables for the entire jurisdiction that is consistent with the number approved as of January 1, 1996, and any additional tables permitted through a legislative review proces s thereafter. Further, the Bureau stated that this Section must be amended before the Bureau approves any new cardroom licenses in the City.

POLICY / RULE

Under Section 2.12 of the City Charter, amendments to the Folsom Municipal Code require review and approval by the City Council.

ANALYSIS

Staff propose to amend FMC Section 5.20.050(C) as follows:

5.20.050 Action on applications.

C. Only one (1) cardroom is permitted in the City, and only one (1) cardroom license may be issued in the City. Anything to the contrary notwithstanding, no cardroom license shall be granted when the number of cardroom licenses in the city exceeds the ratio of one cardroom for each two thousand five hundred persons in the city according to the last preceding federal census or special census conducted under the supervision of the Department of Finance of the State of California at the time of the application; provided, that this population limitation shall not prevent the continuance of any cardroom existing and operating at the time of the passage of the ordinance codified in this chapter. Such continued operation, however, shall be in compliance with the regulations of Sec tion

Page 504 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.17.
3 5.20.070 in all respects. The population standard established in this section is intended to fix a maximum limitation on the number of licenses. The city council may, in its discretion, elect to authorize fewer licenses than such standard would allow.

This amendment will bring the FMC into compliance with the Act and clarify applicable limits to cardroom operators looking to establish a business in the City. Any new cardroom would need to obtain both a license, a Conditional Use Permit, and be subject to the State Gambling Control Act restrictions and regulations .

California Business and Professions Code Section 19961.07, subdivision (a), permits up to a 25% increase in card tables allowed by a jurisdiction. As stated in the Background section of this report, the current number of card tables allowed per cardroom is eleven. Staff recommend that the City Council consider also amending FMC Section 5.20.070(A)(2) to permit two additional card tables for a total of thirteen and to reiterate that the total number of card tables permitted within the City is thirteen:

5.20.070 Cardroom regulations.

A. No person shall operate a cardroom in violation of any of the following regulations:

2. No more than eleven thirteen (13) card tables shall be permitted in any cardroom, and no more than thirteen (13) card tables are allowed in the City.

These additional amendments reiterate the jurisdictional card table limits required to comply with the State Gambling Control Act while allowing a potential licensee the maximum number of card tables permitted for our jurisdiction. The proposed amendments were reviewed and deemed acceptable by the Bureau (Attachments 2 and 3).

FINANCIAL IMPACT

No immediate financial impact is expected from these proposed amendments.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

The project is exempt under Section 15061(b)(3) - Common Sense Rule of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed amendments to FMC Chapter 5.20 have no potential to cause significant effects on the environment.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Ordinance No. 1351 – An Ordinance of the City of Folsom Amending Sections

5.20.050(C) and 5.20.070(A)(2) of the Folsom Municipal Code to Increase the Number of Card Tables and Specify the Number of Cardrooms and Card Tables in the City

2. California Department of Justice, Bureau of Gambling Control correspondence, dated February 7, 2025.

Page 505 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.17.
4 3. California Department of Justice, Bureau of Gambling Control correspondence, dated February 25, 2025.

Submitted,

PAM JOHNS
Community Development Director

Page 506 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.17.

Attachment 1

Page 507 ends

04/22/2025 Item No.17.

Ordinance No. 1351

Page 1 of 2 ends

ORDINANCE NO. 1351

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FOLSOM AMENDING
SECTIONS 5.20.050(C) AND 5.20.070(A)(2) OF THE FOLSOM MUNICIPAL CODE TO

INCREASE THE NUMBER OF CARD TABLES AND SPECIFY THE NUMBER OF

CARDROOMS AND CARD TABLES IN THE CITY

The City Council of the City of Folsom does hereby ordain as follows:

SECTION 1 PURPOSE

The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the Folsom Municipal Code to conform with California Business and Professions Code §19860(a)(5) by regulating the number of cardrooms and card tables in the City, and to increase the number of card tables in the City from 11 to 13 pursuant to the allowance provided by California Business and Professions Code §19961.07(a).

SECTION 2 AMENDMENT TO CODE

Section 5.20.050(C) of the Folsom Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

5.20.050 Action on applications.

C. Only one (1) cardroom is permitted in the City, and only one (1) cardroom license may be issued in the City.

SECTION 3 AMENDMENT TO CODE

Section 5.20.070(A)(2) of the Folsom Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

5.20.070 Cardroom regulations.

A. No person shall operate a cardroom in violation of any of the following regulations:

2. No more than thirteen (13) card tables shall be permitted in any cardroom, and no more than thirteen (13) card tables are allowed in the City.

SECTION 4 SCOPE

Except as set forth in this ordinance, all other provisions of the Folsom Municipal Code shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 5 SEVERABILITY

If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase in this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effe ctiveness of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council declares that it would have passed each

Page 508 ends

Folsom City CouncilApril 22, 2025

Folsom City Council
April 22, 2025